September 14, 2025 • 41 mins
Last week, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters announced plans to campaign for compulsory KiwiSaver at the next election, and increase the minimum contribution from 4% to 12%.
He said there would be tax cuts alongside these changes to help fund the increase in contributions.
LISTEN ABOVE
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 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talk SEDB.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Because I'm doing this, and then I'm just say you
told me to get a job at US. We've been
and I'm super fosed, So I opened my demo. I
want to see me.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
And I'm super clever.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
And then I'm so stupid. DM you hated when I
cry that time was the once and I'm super fosed.
So I show you that I'm not a thousand people
looking me.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Rehen, I ain't no long and yes, welcome back smart money.
I'm Tim Beverage on the Weekend Collective. We want your calls.
Of course, I one hundred eighty ten eighty text nine
to nine two. Got a couple of things to talk about.
We'll see how where the conversation leads us. But last
week you will remember the New Zealand fist Winston Peters
(01:02):
announced plans. I've almost forgotten about it because we of
Stuart Nash up there some since blotted his coffee book.
But remember the big announcement that Winston made was his
plans to campaign for compulsory ki We saver at the
next election and an increase minimum contributions from I think
it was from four percent to a combined ten percent,
maybe maybe even more than that or twelve percent anyway,
(01:26):
but he said there'd be tax cuts along these alongside
these changes to help with the increase in contributions. But
is it a good idea to force people and their
employee employers to invest this much into the super because
I've always wondered, should you just investing it in some
other fund of your choice? You best to go for key,
we save it anyway. Coral Wealth managing director Rupert Carlyon
(01:48):
is with us. Yeah for smart money and Rupert, good morning,
a good afternoon, good after.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
Sorry, big night. That's the morning time now boy.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
By the way, not that it's got anything to do
with sport, but I haven't even mentioned that All Black
match or thone, which I'm still reeling for. That was
a comp leak. Did you watch that?
Speaker 4 (02:06):
I watched it that last half hour where traditionally where
we did so well, but we just can't even compete anymore.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
It was they were genuine. I mean, the spring box
looked like the metaphor of the spring box. They looked amazing.
I actually went to bed. I didn't go to bed.
I put my daughters to bed with fifteen minutes to go.
I just said to my youngest, I said, oh, this
is all over bar the shouting at twenty fourteen. Then
I woke up this morning, I was like, what how
much ten?
Speaker 4 (02:32):
But that's what we used to do. That's the all
blacks of kind of five ten years ago, where the
last fifteen is when we just piled on the points
and put on the pressure.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Oh well, there we go. It gives us a chance
to put that to one side so we can really
focus on the money side of things. Hey, what did
you make of Winston Peters? And now? What was it?
Speaker 5 (02:50):
Was it?
Speaker 3 (02:50):
Increasing millim? Oh? I don't know what it was was I.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Thought it was one go to Well, there's a bit
of debate. Some people are saying it's only ten. Others
are saying it was actually ten plus ten, so total
of twenty, which is way too high.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Oh I don't think was ten plus ten. I think
it was about ten, wasn't it. Yeah?
Speaker 4 (03:08):
Well, Nicola Willis is on record saying ten plus ten,
but who knows?
Speaker 3 (03:12):
But other people say twelve. My producer Tyra is telling
me because she actually typed in twelve and I second
guessed her. What's what she's written in my own tray
here to being ten percent. But anyway he wants to
shove it up a lot.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
He does.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Well.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Yeah, but putting those numbers in context though, so internationally
Australia there at twelve potentially going to fifteen or sorry,
and I think that's lot. OECD average on pension contributions
is actually fifteen percent. Ah, so yeah, ten percent is
probably on the lower side of where it's going to
have to stop. But if we actually want to do keep,
(03:44):
we save it properly. I think the.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Only reason I'm cynical about it, and I don't mean
cynical about it, because I think we have to. We
should all be investing, you know, making sure we're ready
for retirement and all that. But the reason I'm cynical
about it is that it seemed like an idea that
had come up with on the back of the envelope
and has got no idea how much it's going to cost.
If he's going to offer people a tax rebate on
(04:07):
that contribution, that's that's the catch forum And I even
asked chat GPT just to work it out and.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
It was billions. Oh, we're talking ten to twenty billion dollars. Yeah, yeah,
but we're currently spending twenty odd billion on inxet super
every single year, and so effectively, this is the first
step of moving it into some other form of saving.
Because let's be clear, inst Super and its current form
is not sustainable.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Not sustainable because we I'm nervous about this count of
worms here, but I'm going to wig and open it.
I can cheek.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
You can't do one without the other, No, you can't.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
I mean it is unsustainable because there are so many
of us who are going to be retired. But combine
that or is it unsustainable because we could make it
sustainable if we just made it a little bit later
or something else.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Well, so just let's talk numbers for a sec. I'm
a finance guy. So we're currently spending five and a
half percent of GDP on indeed souper. Our title tax
takes about thirty two to thirty three percent. Currently, there
are four people for every person under the age of
sixty five. For every person over the age of sixty five.
In thirty years time, there's two people under the age
(05:20):
of sixty five, and so we've got this massive aging population.
The forecast for indeed super is that it grows to
seven and a half percent of GDP, which were just
that's an extra ten percent of tax take alone with
a smaller group of people paying for it.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
So it'll be seven and a half percent of seven
and a half percent of GDP as opposed to what
is it now five five and a half five and
a half percent. But that equates to a massive amount
of our tax take.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
A massive amount of our tax take, and you've got
less people working because you've got more people in retirement.
So particularly, there's a whole series of issues where the
structure of our tax My view is that it's not
entirely fair to just to expect people to work longer
and longer and longer.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
I've kind of a lot of my family farm as
builder friends, all of those guys, they're all chomping with
a bit to retire from about sixty.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Yeah. I mean, if you're if you're a trade and
you're working with your body basically, you know your physical
fitness is part of your as part of your gig.
It's hard, yeahkay. But of course we did put the
retirement age, we have put it up before, and we're
all living longer. I mean, to me, I can imagine
there are two things, uh, and one is put in
the age up and the other is something that I
(06:35):
think is politically unsellable, which.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
Is unsellable for the nationals. Means testing, means testing, but
it has to be done right.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
The greends were listening and go, let's wealth taxed.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
Well yes, well I'm not going to go there, but
but look, but I mean, let's be clear, right, we
don't even need to be creative on this because Australia,
our next door neighbors, have got the best super innovation
system in the world. What do they do. They give
people massive tax incentives to force them to save their
our own pensions on the way through. And then what
(07:08):
they do is they kind of means test and what
that means for them, they've got a model which is sustainable.
So between the tax deductions plus what they're paying out,
it's four and a half percent of GDP people can retire. Well,
so up over there you can get up to one
thousand dollars a week on your pension if you need it,
versus the four hundred odd that you get here. So
(07:29):
it's it's a much better system that does a better
job at looking after people and at the same time though,
because they're using the incentive. So if you contribute to
your super over in Australia, you only pay tax at
seventeen and a half percent, versus over there they've got
marginal tax rates its highest forty five.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Can we afford that sort of thing?
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yeah, we're already spending five and a half percent of GDP.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
We've got a but we've got that cost. You can't
suddenly go we're not going to have that cost because
you've got a bunch of people who haven't got the
Keywi sav it because they weren't part of that generation
which truly kicked into it. I mean, the Kei we
save is on thing. It really start coming into its
own in twenty thirty years, isn't it?
Speaker 4 (08:06):
Oh k we savable. But there's a lot of very
wealthy people that are currently receiving the superinnuation. So means
test means testing means testing means we can chuck that,
we can chunk that five and a half percent and
we'll be able to deal with that almost immediately. That's
why I also it's a much better answer than the
current national proposal, which is two years over forty years,
because let's be honest, that's actually not going to solve
(08:27):
any problem.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I can also argue your point. It's just sort of done.
Talk back on this quite a bit, and it's not
very popular in the means testing but one of the
things that I always think it's worth pointing out people say,
I paid my taxes for so many years, therefore I'm
entitled to the pension, But in fact, your taxes pay
for so much more than the pension. They are not
(08:49):
an investment in your pension. And I mean, also you
pay your taxes, you might I mean people pass away
before they're sixty. There's no rebate on it. It's not
a contract where it's an investment where you're entitled to
something back. And I think people need to shake that off.
But it's often the people have got millions who are like, well,
you know, I want to I might want not need
(09:11):
that money myself, but I might give it to someone
else in my family. I want the choice to do
something with it. But I'm I don't think it would
take much selling for me to say means test. But
the problem the problem would be with means testing is
that maybe not you, but the Labor and the Greens
version of what wealthy is and what means testing when
it should kick in. That is the big one. Like
(09:33):
some people go, I got a million bucks, it's means testing.
That's it nothing for you, whereas some people are going
on a million bucks at four percent, it's.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
Nothing that's bugger or yeah, but that's a good space
to be right at least we're having the right conversation
at that point. It's better than where we are today
pretending that we don't have a problem.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Okay, oh well you have sort of sidetracked me and
where we're going to go with us. But we can
we can keep going about the Winston one. But I
think it is It's it's unavoidable, is it. So let's
not this is a new thing of conversation, so let's
not talk about the age. But if you're listening right now,
how much money is the point at which you should
(10:10):
be means tested out of superannuation? And I've obviously you've
thought about this route. So what do you reckon a lot?
Speaker 4 (10:17):
I think it's probably in that let's call it one
and a half. One to one and a half million
is including your house. No family home needs is said
of it, because family and family home is not an
income generating esset.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
And would you rebate it? So someone who's got a
bit less than that exactly, I mean it kicks in
more so, it's kicks in at a million or a million
and a half. I would say a million and a
half minimum to be honest, I'm dreaming, of course, but
a million and a half and at kicks in on
a gradual scale up to two or three million.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
Or something exactly. So you go so massive university have
done some numbers. I think they're saying it's it's about
a million dollars is where they reckon? I think those
numbers are a little bit light. But but what you're
doing is you do a sliding scale between two million
to a million, and you get a percentage of the
pension based on where you sit on that kind of
piece on your.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
So you'd go from full pension at a million to
nothing at two million. Okay, so we're really talking about, Yeah,
it's a million is a bit makes me go, h,
you know if you just cut it out of that point.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
But what also You've got to remember, right, your means
testing changes. So if all of a sudden you spend
a whole lot and you kind of markets crash and
all of a sudden, you've now only got six hundred grand.
You're back in the pot, right, So so if you've got.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
A lot of money, you better just go on some
really fantastic.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Holidays you spend it. Well, it'd be great for the economy,
wouldn't it if all these people started spending a whole
lot of extra money.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Hell, actually just starting to make sense on this.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
I mean that means testing. It does a lot for
kind of where we need to go, right. And then
also you go, we can all of a sudden pay
from one thousand dollars, so move from four hundred dollars
a week, which, lets be honest, is not a great
life for people if that's all level, particularly in an
environment where the next generation are not going to have
(12:07):
their own house with a mortgage paid down, because let's
be honest, we're all going to have a mortgages till
about one hundred and sixty five, and so you go,
we're going to need to pay people more money anyway.
So there's a whole range of problems with the current structure.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Yeah, and I also think that there are a lot
of people who, you know, sixty five might be the
number the government allocates. But people will be like, well,
I'm not retiring at sixty five. I'm going till i'm
seventy seventy five. Whatever. Well, I think we're going to
see more and more people working longer and longer if
they can.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
If they can. It's easy for you and I to
say that because we're sitting at our desks, right.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
But then again, you might get someone who's a trades person.
It'll be like, Okay, I can only do this for
so much longer. But you know what, I think, if
I employed someone to do maybe I can still stay.
But I'm sure there are traders out there going, okay,
I need to look at getting one or two people
and to do with all the grunt work. And I
can still do some of the technical stuff. But I think,
(13:01):
I mean, ideally, if you do have your own business
and you're in a physical job like that, you probably
do want to sort of phase out the tools, don't you.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Yeah, look you want to. I mean in my famous
famous last words, and what I see, unfortunately, for a
lot of people, managing people is far from ideal or easy,
and it's a very quick way to ruin. Is when
you're trying to turn into from a kind of do
it yourself business to a business where you're managing a
whole lot of other people.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Yeah, we want your calls on this. Actually, so that's
triggered by Winston. Lots of things are triggered about.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
Well, but do you know what I reckon the most
biggest irony, the biggest defender of all of superannuation. Winston
is the one person that's giving us an out for
how we're going to actually be able to cut superannuation,
because that's what is ten percent is doing.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
So what's it doing?
Speaker 4 (13:48):
Has ten percent Q you save a contribution? He's setting
us up to be able to withdraw universal superannuation because
why bother with ten percent minimum? And why buy it
with compulsion which he's talking about.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Now that's going to be a long way off though,
wasn't it?
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Well he's but I find it amazing that Winston is
starting this conversation.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
It is interesting, Hey, just out of curious just quickly
on he wasn't clear at all about what the tax
you know, making up for employers. So he's not going
to I don't he's thinking he's ever going to give
him a tax butt cut, which will cover the cost
of their contribution. He's just going to enable them to
deduct that as an expense, which you.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Know he's not even going to do that.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
But it would be deductible anyway. If I'm having if
I as an employer, I having to pay you one
hundred bucks, but then an extra four dollars and insurance,
that's a tax deduction for me anyway. So job done,
isn't it.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
It is, so for the employer it is, but effectively
not for the employee. Would probably rather the cash, right
because if they're going to pay an extra four percent
in terms of contributions and they're going to pay them
four percent less in cash, which is where offshore, what
they all do is they either go so in the
UK you can actually put all of your money into
your pension tax fring so doesn't occur any tax up
(14:59):
to a maximum I think it's forty five thousand pounds
a year. You are taxed on the way out Australia
where they've got the idea that kind of seventeen and
a half percent. So every other country in the world
has massive tax rebates after doing it, and New Zealand's
going to have to do the same, because personally, I
don't think it's fear to tell people you've got to
(15:20):
invest in the scheme. You're going to lock your money
up to sixty five. Yeah, there's no real upside Otherwise
I might as well just.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Go in your house, of course. But I think you've
been I think you're on the record of saying you
don't agree with the drawing with Is it you or
someone else I've had on who doesn't like the withdrawing
of the money for the house deposit?
Speaker 4 (15:35):
Oh, look, it's not a great it's not great great.
It might have probably was me to be fair.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
Let's not divert ourselves though. But the question is superannuation,
the cost of it. Winston wants to increase the donations, sorry,
the donations, the contribution, the contributions. But as Rupert said, well,
we can actually afford what's coming our way if we
means test. So here's the simple question. One, do you
(16:01):
agree with this case? And what I mean is you
don't have to like it, but do you agree with it?
Because you might actually be like, well, because there's all
sorts of things we do, we don't like, we don't like,
but we might agree with them. Do you agree with
it forgetting whether you like it or not. And the
second question is how much should you what wealth? Are
(16:23):
we talking about me being means tested? Rupert has suggested
starting at a million in rebate, rebating up to two
million dollars excluding your home. What do you reckon? Oh,
eight hundred eighty ten eighty. I'm sort of fifty one
percent in favor of what Rupert's saying. I could be
swayed back by your brilliant arguments. Give us a call, Oh,
(16:43):
we one hundred and eighty ten eighty text nine to
two nine two. This is a smart money the WEE
can collect of twenty three past five news talks. It'd
be smart money with Rupert Carlo and he's the managing
director at Creel Wealth. And we're talking about means testing.
Is that inevitable? And what should it look like when
it comes to your super or do you prefer pushing
the age out? I'm going to both to be honest,
(17:04):
because I'm just going to work till I drop mark.
Speaker 6 (17:07):
Hello.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Oh, thank you Tom, and thank you for your man
there listen, and thank.
Speaker 6 (17:13):
You mister Winston.
Speaker 7 (17:14):
Just months ago this wouldn't possibly happen here, but I've heard, and.
Speaker 6 (17:19):
We've all heard the rumor.
Speaker 5 (17:21):
And if you're able to patch it up me Saul,
they are grateful.
Speaker 7 (17:24):
Apparently in some countries if you had too much key
we favor, they are able to deny you the rest
because you were able to support yourself.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
Well it's not keep we saving if you have a
seas for a start, but well there would be countries
where there's no sort of not much government super And
if you've your loaded, does he means testing in other countries?
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Yeah, so most countries will have means testing or some
form right, So yes, Australia, if you've got lots in
your pension then they're not going to give you any
gunment support. The UK it's the same. It all depends
on what you need. But you are right, if you
do have too much, then you move out of the
government support because you can support yourself.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
All right, let's go to Craig good a.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Half. I know mate, how are you good?
Speaker 5 (18:09):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (18:09):
Both of you?
Speaker 7 (18:10):
Yeah? He look mate, I come from a different a
different perspective. I'm seventy two. I've worked all my life
and I'm still working yep, and I cannot understand why
people are planning to have people, putting themto a fund
for their life and then finding a way to take
some of it, often because they are successful sailors or investors.
And I'm not talking about multimillionaires. I'm talking well off
(18:34):
people that worked hard all their life. And I think
that in the face and the face of government efforts
to stop using our natural resources. And I'm not talking
about c beard mining, but there's other things that we've
got lots of resources, the waste of money on wars
and overseas, things don't need to be spent. Put them
(18:56):
into a fund that earns money towards New Zealanders and
instead of planning for the future, to take away from
those who work hard.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
So it's just my yeah, and I'm just trying to
I'm just trying to sum up your point in my head.
Speaker 4 (19:11):
So, Rupert, what So that's the biggest You hit the
nail on the head, right, that's the biggest criticism of
my kind of approach, which is you just discourage people
from working really hard and saving because hey, you'd rather
have the government there take it. I think that the
problem we have so where we're stuck at the moment
(19:32):
is we're in halfway house, right, so we're in a
world where we're not actually putting money aside to pay
for these future pinsion obligations. So if the government was
a private organization, they would have to have a humongous
superannuation fund which would be ten times the size of
the indeed superfund. So the tax payer of today would
actually be saving for their retirement in the future. The
(19:55):
problem is with the way that we're structured, where indeed
super is paid out of general taxation. It's actually the
tax payer of tomorrow that's paying for today. Similar to you,
you've worked your whole life and you've paid for the
superannuens your whole way through.
Speaker 7 (20:09):
My point, my point, my point comes back to the
thing though, that.
Speaker 6 (20:13):
We do have.
Speaker 7 (20:15):
We do have resources there and natural wealth be a
big gold or oil or coal or minerals, we do
have a facility there to add wealth to the national
banking how or whatever you call it. And instead of
instead of giving when when you get to my age
and you hear this plan that's been talked about, not planned,
(20:36):
but you know this idea that we're discussing right now
on the phone, and then you realize that just a
few months ago we give sixty six million dollars to
Ukraine to buy bullets with that kind of stuff.
Speaker 6 (20:46):
Wow, that's really really irksome to me.
Speaker 7 (20:49):
And we don't need to do it. They don't need
our bullets.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Well, I think that's that's a different argument, Craig. But
I think the idea that we just become insular and
don't do anything international community is not a goer. If
you expect to have trade relationships and a whole bunch
of things and be a member of the international community,
I think that's a separate thing. Otherwise, what do we
just become. We're not exactly Switzerland, where we've got a
formidable defense force of our own. We're going to be
(21:13):
We're going to be begging for help if we ever
need it.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Yeah, And I think the resource question I find really
interesting as well, because there's a lot of conversation about
New Zealand having massive amounts of resources and we haven't
been allowed to exploit them to a certain extent. That's true,
but let's also be clear we haven't had a major
resource find in this country for the better part of
the last forty fifty years either or we do have
very high quality coal and some in places that are
(21:39):
extremely hard and expensive to extract from. And I think
there's a I.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Thought the Southland one, it's just a matter of go
and dig it up. Let's go.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Well, if that's easy, but that's we would have done
that years ago, if it was that easy, or politically
even ten years ago, fifteen.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
Okay, yeah, interesting, I hadn't really thought of that actually,
because all you hear is about having we talk about
all of that stuff, but going to go.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
If it was easy to do, it would have been
done by now.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Right, Okay, twenty nine minutes to six, let's go to
Paul today.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Yeah, I have it. Yeah, just listening to you is
what I'm doing. The wedding my Vigi garden, and I'm
sixty nine. I'm still working four days a week.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
Yeh.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Obviously it's going to come. The age of entitlement for
the superannuation has got to go up, and also the
means testing because like you say, we can't sustain it.
And I mean, okay, I'm a double dipper and enjoying
(22:42):
life again a bit more than what I was before
because of that fact. But I agree with the.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Check here we go.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
Means testing, but I think it should be as low
as one hundred thousand.
Speaker 7 (22:59):
Woh what.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, No, you might think it is, Yeah,
but we've got to think of our children and our
grandchildren and our great grandchildren. Okay, one hundred thousand dollars.
Most Kiwis, you know, lie in their own house and
they'll have a bit of money in the bank. Right.
I wouldn't think, you know, Okay, there might be a
(23:21):
food that have got more than one hundred thousand. Okay,
I'm talking about the average kewi. We'll make it two
hundred thousand, then, right, two hundred thousand, and then then
up to a million. What was it you're talking about
rebasing or something like that, make it up to a million.
It's got to come down, and you set the bar too.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
High, Yeah, Paul, that no one's going to win an
election on that. I can tell you that, Paul, regardless
of whether you're right or wrong, that seems to.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
Me theoretically, I can see quite a lot of value
in that, because actually you're saying, make sure people do
actually spend their money first before all the government money
comes in. But I think unfortunately that will be unsellable.
Speaker 5 (23:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
I wonder if they would penalize you for so if
we're above the threshold and you go, well, hell, I'm
going on I'm going on a six month cruise on
the poshest cruise line or I can.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
And I think, no, they can't touch you. That's on
you right then the way they can penalize, which is
again most other countries have this. I think New Zealand's
one of the only ones that doesn't. Yeah, this inheritance
tax so New Zealand. So if you take to grave
it ends up getting paid out at that. Now I
do not like that at all because the countries it
doesn't have it right now.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
I must know. I don't like it because if and
also if I happen to pass away early and I've
worked my butt off to save for my kids, government,
kick your bloody hands off it, because I want it
to go to them, because just because I can't spend
it on my retirement. Yeah, that's well, no one's going
to win that election. That's a fun topic, though, wasn't it.
Speaker 4 (24:45):
All Right, Let's go to Bill.
Speaker 6 (24:47):
Hello, good a.
Speaker 8 (24:50):
I've changed my mind a bit over the years TOI
mon superannuation. I look, I used to market to company
stuff in the seventies and eighties et cetera. And in
the seventies, I you know, I was a means testing
in a while. But times have changed. Incomes these days
(25:10):
are outrageous and not like they used to be in
the older days when there was a closer gap between
rich and poor. And people must realize that it's a benefit,
not an entitlement. Never was and that's how said and
(25:31):
said up. And I get annoyed when people say that
they're still working in their seventies and so on and
they don't want to be penalized on their superannuation, etc.
Well to me, have they worked hard enough by the
(25:51):
time I was sixty three, and you know I'm only
a lot of years later, et cetera, because you know,
I was able to look after my health. But what
about these people who actually diet sixty four, like my
cardiologist did a couple of years ago. And people who
(26:13):
have contributed, well, let's say to tax for years and years,
and they might pass away in their fifties. Their es state,
you could say, should get some money and at sixty four,
certainly perhaps some sort of life insurance cover put into
it and so on. I think I said to you
(26:34):
a couple of years ago that the superannuation should drop
to sixty two or sixty three for means tested, means
tested seventy two to seventy three universal. Now I'm against
that now.
Speaker 4 (26:53):
Yeah, well, I've actually just hearing what you're saying about
the sixty four year olds and the sixty year old
I mean, one of the alternatives if you really wanted
to get radical on this and to actually say you're
abolishing to super full stop and use that twenty percent
of money. So, because that's twenty percent of our tax
tack or so eighteen percent of our tax tak is
now going to fundands. It's super. So we can either
(27:14):
pay lower taxes or we can just use that money
to incentivize people to save for themselves. And if you've
saved yourself and you diet fifty five or you can't
get through to the end, then hey, that's all going
to go to your estate. That would be by far
and away the fairest way to do it politically, tough
to under.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Yeah, because there's yeah, I mean, yeah, right, let's carry
on with the conversation. In fact, tell you what we'll
come back to. Overall, Averril, in just a moment, it
is twenty three minutes to six News Talks. Z'd be
There are three spere lines, by the way, if you're
going to join the conversation. Were back in just a moment.
Lots of text as well. Yes, welcome back to Smart Money.
(27:53):
Tim Beverage with you, and my guest is Rupert Carlyon.
He's the managing director at Cruel Wealth. And Rupert's actually
what He's the one who's throwing the cattermarks the pigeons
on this one we were talking about Winston wanted to
raise minimum contributions from four to ten I think and
ultimately twelve percent combined between employer and employee. But the
spanner in the works that Rupert's tossed in there is that, look,
(28:15):
we can afford some of the changes we need to
make if we means test superannuation, and do you agree
with them? And what should that look like? What is
the point excluding the family home, where you'd want a
means test? Eight one hundred and eighty ten eighty April.
Speaker 6 (28:30):
Hi, Hello, guys, how are You's a couple of points
just with the discussion you've been having. I'm sixty seven,
come halfway to sixty eight. I still work full time.
If you'd asked me before I turned sixty five, if
I thought that I would still be working now, I
(28:53):
would have been horrified at the fort But when it
got to so, when I got to sixty five, I
realized that I just wasn't ready. I'm quite fit, and
I just thought, what. My partner's young than myself, so
he was he still working, And I thought to myself,
what am I.
Speaker 7 (29:09):
Going to be doing?
Speaker 6 (29:10):
And so I decided to keep working, and I feel
it's kept me fit. Now. I do get the pension
because I work, it is cut, and I accept that.
I mean, it's perfectly reasonable to have it cut. I'm
really grateful for it. And I feel like I grew
up in a generation where we expected that we would
(29:32):
get a pension, and there was probably almost enough people
contributing at the time to be able to fund it.
But I'm realistic enough to know that going forward, there
aren't going to be enough people working. People don't have
the family sizes that they used to have. There's just
not the same people contributing to the workforce. I also
(29:57):
feel that at the same time, the pension age probably
and I'm only feeling this now because I'm myself that
I think in Australia it is sixty seven. But at
the same time I know people that are nowhere, they're
as fit as myself and look badly going to work
on a walker if they had to still go to work.
(30:19):
So it's a catch twenty two situation because sometimes it's
your health and wellness that really determines how far you
can continue. But I do feel very grateful. But the
other thing is I have a mixed feelings about what
we were talking about before, about when your means tested.
(30:42):
To be penalized for doing okay in your life is
a hard thing because you can look back and look
at people who might have spent their money differently. So
that last caller who said to set the limit like
about one hundred or two hundred thousand, I don't even
know what he might have been.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
Although although the trade off, I could put it like this,
would you rather have nothing and get the the current
government super or would you rather get no super and
have a couple of million in the bank. And I
can answer that question pretty easily. I'd rather have the
two million in the bank, wouldn't you?
Speaker 6 (31:14):
Yes, exactly the same. But I think that talked about
that million two million threshold, I think, yeah, you've got
to look at a realistic number that would make people
not need a pension at all. But the other thing
I did want to say is I worked. I was
on my own, so I was working, and I didn't
earn a lot, so I didn't contribute as much as
(31:36):
I now wish that I had. And looking back and
looking forward, I feel that the amount that people need
to contribute does need to be more because you don't
realize till you get there how much more money you're
going to need.
Speaker 4 (31:52):
So that one question ever all on the incentives, right,
because you've said it's unfair and people will save less
but quickly, if you didn't get the pension because you're working,
would that stop you working? Or would you work anyway?
Because you've talked about all those other benefits.
Speaker 6 (32:08):
Yeah, oh no, I didn't say work about incentive not
to work? By that think I did. So what was
the question?
Speaker 8 (32:15):
Would have?
Speaker 3 (32:15):
So?
Speaker 4 (32:16):
Would you if we said, because you because you're currently
working full time and you've got a good income outside
of your pension, that means you didn't get the pension,
would that stop you from working?
Speaker 8 (32:27):
Would it stop me from working?
Speaker 2 (32:29):
No?
Speaker 4 (32:30):
No, it wouldn't because I think most people would be similar,
because that's the argument to why it should be universal,
because we're going to stop people working.
Speaker 3 (32:38):
I don't think Yeah, I think that's I think that's
right too if I was going to continue working, because
I'll be in a hell of a lot more than
the pension.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
Hey, by the way, on the retirement age, the AI
tells me just in my quick search that you can
access your superannuations from sixty but the age eligibility force
for the retirement savings, sorry, for the age pension eligibility
is sixty seven, which there at sixty seven. There we go, right,
(33:07):
we're not going to take another call, oht and we're
not going to take an ad break. We're going to
take another call.
Speaker 6 (33:11):
Kent.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
Hello, Hi.
Speaker 5 (33:15):
I was wanting to put in a perspective from someone
who's a bit younger that I was talking to. So
I'm yeah, I'm a bit older, but I was talking
with a twenty year old and he surprised me because
he was saying, we're talking about KEYV Saver and he
was putting away ten percent of his salary or his
(33:38):
innings into kiwisaver through his pay. He was doing that,
So that was a bit surprising. But then if I
think about it, I suppose he's being brought up with
this idea he has to save, and he doesn't have kids,
he doesn't have a partner at this At this stage,
he's living with his parents, so he can afford to
(34:00):
put ten percent of his salary away. So maybe it
wouldn't be that difficult to get people to save ten percent,
like well, possibly.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
When they're single with possibly when they're single with no
other responsibilities, you would probably that's a good good.
Speaker 4 (34:20):
Might go from three to ten. But I think what
we see with quite a few clients and quite a
few people we speak to is once they're already at
that eight or ten percent, so kind of because they
might have been saving for their first time, or they
might have been doing something and they might have been
a lull in their life where they had a little
bit of extra money. It's often what we see as
people are just accidentally they're still on that ten percent
or that high number. Because what people, more often than not,
(34:45):
once you get used to never seeing that money come
to your paycheck, it's just part of kind of it
just never gets there.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
Yeah, it's actually but the other thing about money, By
the way, as I write a note to myself, money
isn't what it used to be. But gosh, you, I
think people's ideas of what a lot of money is
these days and what actually money. I think there are
a lot of people who found that, you know, rates
have gone up, there's up there, the cost of the groceries.
(35:13):
We of course we know about deary and all that
sort of stuff, but really, I mean, and sometimes rates
have gone up massively and you're if you your rates
have gone up a couple of thousand bucks, then that's
another forty or fifty bucks a week, And I mean,
what's this? Money's too tight to mention that great song
bloody true.
Speaker 4 (35:31):
Yeah. The property thing I find really interesting because we
talk about you've just got to have your home mortgage free,
and that's what's going to set you up. But actually
now there's a lot of people that can't afford to
keep those houses because by the time you're paying five
or ten thousand dollars a year in rates, you've got
another four or five thousand dollars in insurance something goes wrong.
I mean, it's a really, really tough world for.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Pension doesn't go very far, you think in house insurance
and if you're trying to have health insurance where you're
not going to have it, if you're just getting the pension,
I mean, which is the interesting trade off about what
you think the government should invest more and so people
don't need health insurance and stuff.
Speaker 4 (36:03):
And I'm not brave enough to say, but wow, the
truth is universal healthcare has to stop to boom fire.
Speaker 3 (36:10):
Okay, well we'll save that. Yeah, look it's eleven minutes too.
You've just been misbehaving now, Rupert.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
So because the other one that we haven't really talked
about on Winston's is the other reason he wants it
is because he wants to sort of spend all the
q he saving money in New Zealand businesses then on infrastructure,
which I think is really interesting, right because in my mind,
my job is to make as much money as I
can for my clients.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
My job money wherever you wan exactly. Yeah, So that's
a cute sounding idea, but I don't think he's I
just get the impressionble Winston's it's a cute sounding idea,
gets the sound bite. I mean, I asked him how
much it's going to cost and basically, i'd be fair
to say from his arts, so I don't think he
had a clue.
Speaker 4 (36:53):
No, he's just floating an idea.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
But what we've said, well, I think when you float
an idea, you shouldn't if it's workable or not. I
mean you shouldn't you know what it's going to cost.
You just need to ask chat GPT. We'll have a
good guess at it for you. It took me about
a minute and a half to find out a rough
idea of what it costs, and I compared it with
a couple of other people's reckons and okay, it's going
to be billions.
Speaker 4 (37:13):
Ten to twenty billion. Yeah, okay, we'll be.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
Back in a tick. It's we'll get time to squea.
I'll actually tell you what. We'll come back with some
texts in just a moment. It's ten minutes to six
news talks. He'd be news talk. Said, b look, we've
only got a couple months left with Rupert Carlo and
from kural Wealth and thanks for all your texts. I'm
going to read the top one here, which I think
is just to get Rupert's take on it. But this
(37:37):
person says the issue is going to be people hiding
their wealth and trusts as they do already. And yeah,
let's face it. I mean trusts are going to have
to be looked through, aren't they true?
Speaker 4 (37:49):
And so you can deal with that in two ways.
You either make it so that the beneficiaries or kind
of if you've settled into a trust then that all
goes there, or the other way. Many jurisdictions they'll do
gifting texts so as it moves in there. That's similar
to the inheritance tax because overseas the trust to use
as a way to avoid inheritance tax. So they kind
(38:12):
of they get at you through there, and that is
right though you've got to be quite a comprehensive system
around all of that to avoid the avoidance.
Speaker 3 (38:20):
I wonder how much of this is going to be
an election issue.
Speaker 4 (38:23):
Well, look, Nichola willis if at the Financial Service Council
last week, she made it very clear she thought it
was impossible for parties not to come with the coherent
superannuation and qsab A policy. She made it very clear
those two things need to go together. But she's also
on record of saying the current settings are unsustainable. Something
(38:45):
has to happen.
Speaker 3 (38:47):
I wonder how many people think we should have thrown
this out at the start of the show. Actually, how
many people believe, regardless of what you want and what
you like and what you hope and your dreams are,
how many people genuinely believe that the current settings are sustainable?
And I would have to say, can't be many if
they're if we're honest with ourselves.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
Ah yeah, but when are we ever honest with ourselves
where we believe what we are don't believe?
Speaker 3 (39:17):
Another one here says I'm fifty eight, I've paid my taxes,
and I understand the country can't afford it. I don't
have an issue with a fair means. With a fair
means test an important word. Yeah, if you're if you
are sixty five and working, why do you get super
I think there are a decent chunk of people who
do understand this is an issue. But the question is,
and that's why I don't trust the politicians is because
(39:39):
what chrisph Luxe and David Simia Winston Peter's idea of
fairers versus what Chloe Swarbrick and her colleagues idea of
sweet of fairers. As Night and day, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (39:51):
Well, that's the big issue, that's the biggest sue on consensus.
So Nicola Willis wants consensus from Barbara Edmonds on on superannuation.
Much chance of that? Well, if she agrees to radiation
sixty and she'll get consensus. But if she wants means testing,
Nicola Willison's never going to give consensus. So you're never
going to get consensus because they're both said at opposite ends.
Speaker 3 (40:12):
Oh well, it's interesting conversation and it's not gonna be
the last time we talk about it. Hey, thanks so
much for coming, mate, And if people want to check
out Curral Wealth, where do they go?
Speaker 4 (40:21):
Visit our website dub dub dub dot Coral Wealth Ko
you r a wee lt h dot co doo nz.
Speaker 3 (40:29):
Excellent mate, great to see you. If you've missed any
of this hour, any of ours actually been a ripper
of a show. I would suggest you go and tune
into it all from my interview with Willow Jene Prime
to chat about food and simple nutritious food without all
the fancy recipes with Alifs and gofton. It was a
fantastic Aaron, another excellent hour with Rupert Carla on from
Cora Wealth. My pronunciation of that's a bit dodgy, but
(40:51):
we'll work on it for next time. Thanks to my producer,
Tyra Award. Great work, Tyra, and we'll look forward to
your company. Next weekend, same time, same place. Sunday at
six is next. Catch you soon here.
Speaker 1 (41:05):
You win my head and my bed when I'm dreaming.
Speaker 3 (41:09):
I'm trying to pay my dream and you blow me
small hope.
Speaker 2 (41:14):
Now my scared and telling you when you can go, Pashi.
Speaker 4 (41:21):
You're not per.
Speaker 7 (41:25):
For more from the Weekend Collective.
Speaker 3 (41:27):
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 Talk SEDB.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Because I'm doing this, and then I'm just say you
told me to get a job at US. We've been
and I'm super fosed, So I opened my demo. I
want to see me.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
And I'm super clever.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
And then I'm so stupid. DM you hated when I
cry that time was the once and I'm super fosed.
So I show you that I'm not a thousand people
looking me.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Rehen, I ain't no long and yes, welcome back smart money.
I'm Tim Beverage on the Weekend Collective. We want your calls.
Of course, I one hundred eighty ten eighty text nine
to nine two. Got a couple of things to talk about.
We'll see how where the conversation leads us. But last
week you will remember the New Zealand fist Winston Peters
(01:02):
announced plans. I've almost forgotten about it because we of
Stuart Nash up there some since blotted his coffee book.
But remember the big announcement that Winston made was his
plans to campaign for compulsory ki We saver at the
next election and an increase minimum contributions from I think
it was from four percent to a combined ten percent,
maybe maybe even more than that or twelve percent anyway,
(01:26):
but he said there'd be tax cuts along these alongside
these changes to help with the increase in contributions. But
is it a good idea to force people and their
employee employers to invest this much into the super because
I've always wondered, should you just investing it in some
other fund of your choice? You best to go for key,
we save it anyway. Coral Wealth managing director Rupert Carlyon
(01:48):
is with us. Yeah for smart money and Rupert, good morning,
a good afternoon, good after.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
Sorry, big night. That's the morning time now boy.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
By the way, not that it's got anything to do
with sport, but I haven't even mentioned that All Black
match or thone, which I'm still reeling for. That was
a comp leak. Did you watch that?
Speaker 4 (02:06):
I watched it that last half hour where traditionally where
we did so well, but we just can't even compete anymore.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
It was they were genuine. I mean, the spring box
looked like the metaphor of the spring box. They looked amazing.
I actually went to bed. I didn't go to bed.
I put my daughters to bed with fifteen minutes to go.
I just said to my youngest, I said, oh, this
is all over bar the shouting at twenty fourteen. Then
I woke up this morning, I was like, what how
much ten?
Speaker 4 (02:32):
But that's what we used to do. That's the all
blacks of kind of five ten years ago, where the
last fifteen is when we just piled on the points
and put on the pressure.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
Oh well, there we go. It gives us a chance
to put that to one side so we can really
focus on the money side of things. Hey, what did
you make of Winston Peters? And now? What was it?
Speaker 5 (02:50):
Was it?
Speaker 3 (02:50):
Increasing millim? Oh? I don't know what it was was I.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Thought it was one go to Well, there's a bit
of debate. Some people are saying it's only ten. Others
are saying it was actually ten plus ten, so total
of twenty, which is way too high.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Oh I don't think was ten plus ten. I think
it was about ten, wasn't it. Yeah?
Speaker 4 (03:08):
Well, Nicola Willis is on record saying ten plus ten,
but who knows?
Speaker 3 (03:12):
But other people say twelve. My producer Tyra is telling
me because she actually typed in twelve and I second
guessed her. What's what she's written in my own tray
here to being ten percent. But anyway he wants to
shove it up a lot.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
He does.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Well.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Yeah, but putting those numbers in context though, so internationally
Australia there at twelve potentially going to fifteen or sorry,
and I think that's lot. OECD average on pension contributions
is actually fifteen percent. Ah, so yeah, ten percent is
probably on the lower side of where it's going to
have to stop. But if we actually want to do keep,
(03:44):
we save it properly. I think the.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Only reason I'm cynical about it, and I don't mean
cynical about it, because I think we have to. We
should all be investing, you know, making sure we're ready
for retirement and all that. But the reason I'm cynical
about it is that it seemed like an idea that
had come up with on the back of the envelope
and has got no idea how much it's going to cost.
If he's going to offer people a tax rebate on
(04:07):
that contribution, that's that's the catch forum And I even
asked chat GPT just to work it out and.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
It was billions. Oh, we're talking ten to twenty billion dollars. Yeah, yeah,
but we're currently spending twenty odd billion on inxet super
every single year, and so effectively, this is the first
step of moving it into some other form of saving.
Because let's be clear, inst Super and its current form
is not sustainable.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Not sustainable because we I'm nervous about this count of
worms here, but I'm going to wig and open it.
I can cheek.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
You can't do one without the other, No, you can't.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
I mean it is unsustainable because there are so many
of us who are going to be retired. But combine
that or is it unsustainable because we could make it
sustainable if we just made it a little bit later
or something else.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Well, so just let's talk numbers for a sec. I'm
a finance guy. So we're currently spending five and a
half percent of GDP on indeed souper. Our title tax
takes about thirty two to thirty three percent. Currently, there
are four people for every person under the age of
sixty five. For every person over the age of sixty five.
In thirty years time, there's two people under the age
(05:20):
of sixty five, and so we've got this massive aging population.
The forecast for indeed super is that it grows to
seven and a half percent of GDP, which were just
that's an extra ten percent of tax take alone with
a smaller group of people paying for it.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
So it'll be seven and a half percent of seven
and a half percent of GDP as opposed to what
is it now five five and a half five and
a half percent. But that equates to a massive amount
of our tax take.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
A massive amount of our tax take, and you've got
less people working because you've got more people in retirement.
So particularly, there's a whole series of issues where the
structure of our tax My view is that it's not
entirely fair to just to expect people to work longer
and longer and longer.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
I've kind of a lot of my family farm as
builder friends, all of those guys, they're all chomping with
a bit to retire from about sixty.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Yeah. I mean, if you're if you're a trade and
you're working with your body basically, you know your physical
fitness is part of your as part of your gig.
It's hard, yeahkay. But of course we did put the
retirement age, we have put it up before, and we're
all living longer. I mean, to me, I can imagine
there are two things, uh, and one is put in
the age up and the other is something that I
(06:35):
think is politically unsellable, which.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
Is unsellable for the nationals. Means testing, means testing, but
it has to be done right.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
The greends were listening and go, let's wealth taxed.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
Well yes, well I'm not going to go there, but
but look, but I mean, let's be clear, right, we
don't even need to be creative on this because Australia,
our next door neighbors, have got the best super innovation
system in the world. What do they do. They give
people massive tax incentives to force them to save their
our own pensions on the way through. And then what
(07:08):
they do is they kind of means test and what
that means for them, they've got a model which is sustainable.
So between the tax deductions plus what they're paying out,
it's four and a half percent of GDP people can retire. Well,
so up over there you can get up to one
thousand dollars a week on your pension if you need it,
versus the four hundred odd that you get here. So
(07:29):
it's it's a much better system that does a better
job at looking after people and at the same time though,
because they're using the incentive. So if you contribute to
your super over in Australia, you only pay tax at
seventeen and a half percent, versus over there they've got
marginal tax rates its highest forty five.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Can we afford that sort of thing?
Speaker 4 (07:48):
Yeah, we're already spending five and a half percent of GDP.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
We've got a but we've got that cost. You can't
suddenly go we're not going to have that cost because
you've got a bunch of people who haven't got the
Keywi sav it because they weren't part of that generation
which truly kicked into it. I mean, the Kei we
save is on thing. It really start coming into its
own in twenty thirty years, isn't it?
Speaker 4 (08:06):
Oh k we savable. But there's a lot of very
wealthy people that are currently receiving the superinnuation. So means
test means testing means testing means we can chuck that,
we can chunk that five and a half percent and
we'll be able to deal with that almost immediately. That's
why I also it's a much better answer than the
current national proposal, which is two years over forty years,
because let's be honest, that's actually not going to solve
(08:27):
any problem.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I can also argue your point. It's just sort of done.
Talk back on this quite a bit, and it's not
very popular in the means testing but one of the
things that I always think it's worth pointing out people say,
I paid my taxes for so many years, therefore I'm
entitled to the pension, But in fact, your taxes pay
for so much more than the pension. They are not
(08:49):
an investment in your pension. And I mean, also you
pay your taxes, you might I mean people pass away
before they're sixty. There's no rebate on it. It's not
a contract where it's an investment where you're entitled to
something back. And I think people need to shake that off.
But it's often the people have got millions who are like, well,
you know, I want to I might want not need
(09:11):
that money myself, but I might give it to someone
else in my family. I want the choice to do
something with it. But I'm I don't think it would
take much selling for me to say means test. But
the problem the problem would be with means testing is
that maybe not you, but the Labor and the Greens
version of what wealthy is and what means testing when
it should kick in. That is the big one. Like
(09:33):
some people go, I got a million bucks, it's means testing.
That's it nothing for you, whereas some people are going
on a million bucks at four percent, it's.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
Nothing that's bugger or yeah, but that's a good space
to be right at least we're having the right conversation
at that point. It's better than where we are today
pretending that we don't have a problem.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Okay, oh well you have sort of sidetracked me and
where we're going to go with us. But we can
we can keep going about the Winston one. But I
think it is It's it's unavoidable, is it. So let's
not this is a new thing of conversation, so let's
not talk about the age. But if you're listening right now,
how much money is the point at which you should
(10:10):
be means tested out of superannuation? And I've obviously you've
thought about this route. So what do you reckon a lot?
Speaker 4 (10:17):
I think it's probably in that let's call it one
and a half. One to one and a half million
is including your house. No family home needs is said
of it, because family and family home is not an
income generating esset.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
And would you rebate it? So someone who's got a
bit less than that exactly, I mean it kicks in
more so, it's kicks in at a million or a million
and a half. I would say a million and a
half minimum to be honest, I'm dreaming, of course, but
a million and a half and at kicks in on
a gradual scale up to two or three million.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
Or something exactly. So you go so massive university have
done some numbers. I think they're saying it's it's about
a million dollars is where they reckon? I think those
numbers are a little bit light. But but what you're
doing is you do a sliding scale between two million
to a million, and you get a percentage of the
pension based on where you sit on that kind of
piece on your.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
So you'd go from full pension at a million to
nothing at two million. Okay, so we're really talking about, Yeah,
it's a million is a bit makes me go, h,
you know if you just cut it out of that point.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
But what also You've got to remember, right, your means
testing changes. So if all of a sudden you spend
a whole lot and you kind of markets crash and
all of a sudden, you've now only got six hundred grand.
You're back in the pot, right, So so if you've got.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
A lot of money, you better just go on some
really fantastic.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Holidays you spend it. Well, it'd be great for the economy,
wouldn't it if all these people started spending a whole
lot of extra money.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Hell, actually just starting to make sense on this.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
I mean that means testing. It does a lot for
kind of where we need to go, right. And then
also you go, we can all of a sudden pay
from one thousand dollars, so move from four hundred dollars
a week, which, lets be honest, is not a great
life for people if that's all level, particularly in an
environment where the next generation are not going to have
(12:07):
their own house with a mortgage paid down, because let's
be honest, we're all going to have a mortgages till
about one hundred and sixty five, and so you go,
we're going to need to pay people more money anyway.
So there's a whole range of problems with the current structure.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Yeah, and I also think that there are a lot
of people who, you know, sixty five might be the
number the government allocates. But people will be like, well,
I'm not retiring at sixty five. I'm going till i'm
seventy seventy five. Whatever. Well, I think we're going to
see more and more people working longer and longer if
they can.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
If they can. It's easy for you and I to
say that because we're sitting at our desks, right.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
But then again, you might get someone who's a trades person.
It'll be like, Okay, I can only do this for
so much longer. But you know what, I think, if
I employed someone to do maybe I can still stay.
But I'm sure there are traders out there going, okay,
I need to look at getting one or two people
and to do with all the grunt work. And I
can still do some of the technical stuff. But I think,
(13:01):
I mean, ideally, if you do have your own business
and you're in a physical job like that, you probably
do want to sort of phase out the tools, don't you.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
Yeah, look you want to. I mean in my famous
famous last words, and what I see, unfortunately, for a
lot of people, managing people is far from ideal or easy,
and it's a very quick way to ruin. Is when
you're trying to turn into from a kind of do
it yourself business to a business where you're managing a
whole lot of other people.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Yeah, we want your calls on this. Actually, so that's
triggered by Winston. Lots of things are triggered about.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
Well, but do you know what I reckon the most
biggest irony, the biggest defender of all of superannuation. Winston
is the one person that's giving us an out for
how we're going to actually be able to cut superannuation,
because that's what is ten percent is doing.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
So what's it doing?
Speaker 4 (13:48):
Has ten percent Q you save a contribution? He's setting
us up to be able to withdraw universal superannuation because
why bother with ten percent minimum? And why buy it
with compulsion which he's talking about.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Now that's going to be a long way off though,
wasn't it?
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Well he's but I find it amazing that Winston is
starting this conversation.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
It is interesting, Hey, just out of curious just quickly
on he wasn't clear at all about what the tax
you know, making up for employers. So he's not going
to I don't he's thinking he's ever going to give
him a tax butt cut, which will cover the cost
of their contribution. He's just going to enable them to
deduct that as an expense, which you.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Know he's not even going to do that.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
But it would be deductible anyway. If I'm having if
I as an employer, I having to pay you one
hundred bucks, but then an extra four dollars and insurance,
that's a tax deduction for me anyway. So job done,
isn't it.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
It is, so for the employer it is, but effectively
not for the employee. Would probably rather the cash, right
because if they're going to pay an extra four percent
in terms of contributions and they're going to pay them
four percent less in cash, which is where offshore, what
they all do is they either go so in the
UK you can actually put all of your money into
your pension tax fring so doesn't occur any tax up
(14:59):
to a maximum I think it's forty five thousand pounds
a year. You are taxed on the way out Australia
where they've got the idea that kind of seventeen and
a half percent. So every other country in the world
has massive tax rebates after doing it, and New Zealand's
going to have to do the same, because personally, I
don't think it's fear to tell people you've got to
(15:20):
invest in the scheme. You're going to lock your money
up to sixty five. Yeah, there's no real upside Otherwise
I might as well just.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Go in your house, of course. But I think you've
been I think you're on the record of saying you
don't agree with the drawing with Is it you or
someone else I've had on who doesn't like the withdrawing
of the money for the house deposit?
Speaker 4 (15:35):
Oh, look, it's not a great it's not great great.
It might have probably was me to be fair.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
Let's not divert ourselves though. But the question is superannuation,
the cost of it. Winston wants to increase the donations, sorry,
the donations, the contribution, the contributions. But as Rupert said, well,
we can actually afford what's coming our way if we
means test. So here's the simple question. One, do you
(16:01):
agree with this case? And what I mean is you
don't have to like it, but do you agree with it?
Because you might actually be like, well, because there's all
sorts of things we do, we don't like, we don't like,
but we might agree with them. Do you agree with
it forgetting whether you like it or not. And the
second question is how much should you what wealth? Are
(16:23):
we talking about me being means tested? Rupert has suggested
starting at a million in rebate, rebating up to two
million dollars excluding your home. What do you reckon? Oh,
eight hundred eighty ten eighty. I'm sort of fifty one
percent in favor of what Rupert's saying. I could be
swayed back by your brilliant arguments. Give us a call, Oh,
(16:43):
we one hundred and eighty ten eighty text nine to
two nine two. This is a smart money the WEE
can collect of twenty three past five news talks. It'd
be smart money with Rupert Carlo and he's the managing
director at Creel Wealth. And we're talking about means testing.
Is that inevitable? And what should it look like when
it comes to your super or do you prefer pushing
the age out? I'm going to both to be honest,
(17:04):
because I'm just going to work till I drop mark.
Speaker 6 (17:07):
Hello.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Oh, thank you Tom, and thank you for your man
there listen, and thank.
Speaker 6 (17:13):
You mister Winston.
Speaker 7 (17:14):
Just months ago this wouldn't possibly happen here, but I've heard, and.
Speaker 6 (17:19):
We've all heard the rumor.
Speaker 5 (17:21):
And if you're able to patch it up me Saul,
they are grateful.
Speaker 7 (17:24):
Apparently in some countries if you had too much key
we favor, they are able to deny you the rest
because you were able to support yourself.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
Well it's not keep we saving if you have a
seas for a start, but well there would be countries
where there's no sort of not much government super And
if you've your loaded, does he means testing in other countries?
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Yeah, so most countries will have means testing or some
form right, So yes, Australia, if you've got lots in
your pension then they're not going to give you any
gunment support. The UK it's the same. It all depends
on what you need. But you are right, if you
do have too much, then you move out of the
government support because you can support yourself.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
All right, let's go to Craig good a.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Half. I know mate, how are you good?
Speaker 5 (18:09):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (18:09):
Both of you?
Speaker 7 (18:10):
Yeah? He look mate, I come from a different a
different perspective. I'm seventy two. I've worked all my life
and I'm still working yep, and I cannot understand why
people are planning to have people, putting themto a fund
for their life and then finding a way to take
some of it, often because they are successful sailors or investors.
And I'm not talking about multimillionaires. I'm talking well off
(18:34):
people that worked hard all their life. And I think
that in the face and the face of government efforts
to stop using our natural resources. And I'm not talking
about c beard mining, but there's other things that we've
got lots of resources, the waste of money on wars
and overseas, things don't need to be spent. Put them
(18:56):
into a fund that earns money towards New Zealanders and
instead of planning for the future, to take away from
those who work hard.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
So it's just my yeah, and I'm just trying to
I'm just trying to sum up your point in my head.
Speaker 4 (19:11):
So, Rupert, what So that's the biggest You hit the
nail on the head, right, that's the biggest criticism of
my kind of approach, which is you just discourage people
from working really hard and saving because hey, you'd rather
have the government there take it. I think that the
problem we have so where we're stuck at the moment
(19:32):
is we're in halfway house, right, so we're in a
world where we're not actually putting money aside to pay
for these future pinsion obligations. So if the government was
a private organization, they would have to have a humongous
superannuation fund which would be ten times the size of
the indeed superfund. So the tax payer of today would
actually be saving for their retirement in the future. The
(19:55):
problem is with the way that we're structured, where indeed
super is paid out of general taxation. It's actually the
tax payer of tomorrow that's paying for today. Similar to you,
you've worked your whole life and you've paid for the
superannuens your whole way through.
Speaker 7 (20:09):
My point, my point, my point comes back to the
thing though, that.
Speaker 6 (20:13):
We do have.
Speaker 7 (20:15):
We do have resources there and natural wealth be a
big gold or oil or coal or minerals, we do
have a facility there to add wealth to the national
banking how or whatever you call it. And instead of
instead of giving when when you get to my age
and you hear this plan that's been talked about, not planned,
(20:36):
but you know this idea that we're discussing right now
on the phone, and then you realize that just a
few months ago we give sixty six million dollars to
Ukraine to buy bullets with that kind of stuff.
Speaker 6 (20:46):
Wow, that's really really irksome to me.
Speaker 7 (20:49):
And we don't need to do it. They don't need
our bullets.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Well, I think that's that's a different argument, Craig. But
I think the idea that we just become insular and
don't do anything international community is not a goer. If
you expect to have trade relationships and a whole bunch
of things and be a member of the international community,
I think that's a separate thing. Otherwise, what do we
just become. We're not exactly Switzerland, where we've got a
formidable defense force of our own. We're going to be
(21:13):
We're going to be begging for help if we ever
need it.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Yeah, And I think the resource question I find really
interesting as well, because there's a lot of conversation about
New Zealand having massive amounts of resources and we haven't
been allowed to exploit them to a certain extent. That's true,
but let's also be clear we haven't had a major
resource find in this country for the better part of
the last forty fifty years either or we do have
very high quality coal and some in places that are
(21:39):
extremely hard and expensive to extract from. And I think
there's a I.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Thought the Southland one, it's just a matter of go
and dig it up. Let's go.
Speaker 4 (21:47):
Well, if that's easy, but that's we would have done
that years ago, if it was that easy, or politically
even ten years ago, fifteen.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
Okay, yeah, interesting, I hadn't really thought of that actually,
because all you hear is about having we talk about
all of that stuff, but going to go.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
If it was easy to do, it would have been
done by now.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Right, Okay, twenty nine minutes to six, let's go to
Paul today.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Yeah, I have it. Yeah, just listening to you is
what I'm doing. The wedding my Vigi garden, and I'm
sixty nine. I'm still working four days a week.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
Yeh.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Obviously it's going to come. The age of entitlement for
the superannuation has got to go up, and also the
means testing because like you say, we can't sustain it.
And I mean, okay, I'm a double dipper and enjoying
(22:42):
life again a bit more than what I was before
because of that fact. But I agree with the.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Check here we go.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
Means testing, but I think it should be as low
as one hundred thousand.
Speaker 7 (22:59):
Woh what.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, No, you might think it is, Yeah,
but we've got to think of our children and our
grandchildren and our great grandchildren. Okay, one hundred thousand dollars.
Most Kiwis, you know, lie in their own house and
they'll have a bit of money in the bank. Right.
I wouldn't think, you know, Okay, there might be a
(23:21):
food that have got more than one hundred thousand. Okay,
I'm talking about the average kewi. We'll make it two
hundred thousand, then, right, two hundred thousand, and then then
up to a million. What was it you're talking about
rebasing or something like that, make it up to a million.
It's got to come down, and you set the bar too.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
High, Yeah, Paul, that no one's going to win an
election on that. I can tell you that, Paul, regardless
of whether you're right or wrong, that seems to.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
Me theoretically, I can see quite a lot of value
in that, because actually you're saying, make sure people do
actually spend their money first before all the government money
comes in. But I think unfortunately that will be unsellable.
Speaker 5 (23:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
I wonder if they would penalize you for so if
we're above the threshold and you go, well, hell, I'm
going on I'm going on a six month cruise on
the poshest cruise line or I can.
Speaker 4 (24:07):
And I think, no, they can't touch you. That's on
you right then the way they can penalize, which is
again most other countries have this. I think New Zealand's
one of the only ones that doesn't. Yeah, this inheritance
tax so New Zealand. So if you take to grave
it ends up getting paid out at that. Now I
do not like that at all because the countries it
doesn't have it right now.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
I must know. I don't like it because if and
also if I happen to pass away early and I've
worked my butt off to save for my kids, government,
kick your bloody hands off it, because I want it
to go to them, because just because I can't spend
it on my retirement. Yeah, that's well, no one's going
to win that election. That's a fun topic, though, wasn't it.
Speaker 4 (24:45):
All Right, Let's go to Bill.
Speaker 6 (24:47):
Hello, good a.
Speaker 8 (24:50):
I've changed my mind a bit over the years TOI
mon superannuation. I look, I used to market to company
stuff in the seventies and eighties et cetera. And in
the seventies, I you know, I was a means testing
in a while. But times have changed. Incomes these days
(25:10):
are outrageous and not like they used to be in
the older days when there was a closer gap between
rich and poor. And people must realize that it's a benefit,
not an entitlement. Never was and that's how said and
(25:31):
said up. And I get annoyed when people say that
they're still working in their seventies and so on and
they don't want to be penalized on their superannuation, etc.
Well to me, have they worked hard enough by the
(25:51):
time I was sixty three, and you know I'm only
a lot of years later, et cetera, because you know,
I was able to look after my health. But what
about these people who actually diet sixty four, like my
cardiologist did a couple of years ago. And people who
(26:13):
have contributed, well, let's say to tax for years and years,
and they might pass away in their fifties. Their es state,
you could say, should get some money and at sixty four,
certainly perhaps some sort of life insurance cover put into
it and so on. I think I said to you
(26:34):
a couple of years ago that the superannuation should drop
to sixty two or sixty three for means tested, means
tested seventy two to seventy three universal. Now I'm against
that now.
Speaker 4 (26:53):
Yeah, well, I've actually just hearing what you're saying about
the sixty four year olds and the sixty year old
I mean, one of the alternatives if you really wanted
to get radical on this and to actually say you're
abolishing to super full stop and use that twenty percent
of money. So, because that's twenty percent of our tax
tack or so eighteen percent of our tax tak is
now going to fundands. It's super. So we can either
(27:14):
pay lower taxes or we can just use that money
to incentivize people to save for themselves. And if you've
saved yourself and you diet fifty five or you can't
get through to the end, then hey, that's all going
to go to your estate. That would be by far
and away the fairest way to do it politically, tough
to under.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Yeah, because there's yeah, I mean, yeah, right, let's carry
on with the conversation. In fact, tell you what we'll
come back to. Overall, Averril, in just a moment, it
is twenty three minutes to six News Talks. Z'd be
There are three spere lines, by the way, if you're
going to join the conversation. Were back in just a moment.
Lots of text as well. Yes, welcome back to Smart Money.
(27:53):
Tim Beverage with you, and my guest is Rupert Carlyon.
He's the managing director at Cruel Wealth. And Rupert's actually
what He's the one who's throwing the cattermarks the pigeons
on this one we were talking about Winston wanted to
raise minimum contributions from four to ten I think and
ultimately twelve percent combined between employer and employee. But the
spanner in the works that Rupert's tossed in there is that, look,
(28:15):
we can afford some of the changes we need to
make if we means test superannuation, and do you agree
with them? And what should that look like? What is
the point excluding the family home, where you'd want a
means test? Eight one hundred and eighty ten eighty April.
Speaker 6 (28:30):
Hi, Hello, guys, how are You's a couple of points
just with the discussion you've been having. I'm sixty seven,
come halfway to sixty eight. I still work full time.
If you'd asked me before I turned sixty five, if
I thought that I would still be working now, I
(28:53):
would have been horrified at the fort But when it
got to so, when I got to sixty five, I
realized that I just wasn't ready. I'm quite fit, and
I just thought, what. My partner's young than myself, so
he was he still working, And I thought to myself,
what am I.
Speaker 7 (29:09):
Going to be doing?
Speaker 6 (29:10):
And so I decided to keep working, and I feel
it's kept me fit. Now. I do get the pension
because I work, it is cut, and I accept that.
I mean, it's perfectly reasonable to have it cut. I'm
really grateful for it. And I feel like I grew
up in a generation where we expected that we would
(29:32):
get a pension, and there was probably almost enough people
contributing at the time to be able to fund it.
But I'm realistic enough to know that going forward, there
aren't going to be enough people working. People don't have
the family sizes that they used to have. There's just
not the same people contributing to the workforce. I also
(29:57):
feel that at the same time, the pension age probably
and I'm only feeling this now because I'm myself that
I think in Australia it is sixty seven. But at
the same time I know people that are nowhere, they're
as fit as myself and look badly going to work
on a walker if they had to still go to work.
(30:19):
So it's a catch twenty two situation because sometimes it's
your health and wellness that really determines how far you
can continue. But I do feel very grateful. But the
other thing is I have a mixed feelings about what
we were talking about before, about when your means tested.
(30:42):
To be penalized for doing okay in your life is
a hard thing because you can look back and look
at people who might have spent their money differently. So
that last caller who said to set the limit like
about one hundred or two hundred thousand, I don't even
know what he might have been.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
Although although the trade off, I could put it like this,
would you rather have nothing and get the the current
government super or would you rather get no super and
have a couple of million in the bank. And I
can answer that question pretty easily. I'd rather have the
two million in the bank, wouldn't you?
Speaker 6 (31:14):
Yes, exactly the same. But I think that talked about
that million two million threshold, I think, yeah, you've got
to look at a realistic number that would make people
not need a pension at all. But the other thing
I did want to say is I worked. I was
on my own, so I was working, and I didn't
earn a lot, so I didn't contribute as much as
(31:36):
I now wish that I had. And looking back and
looking forward, I feel that the amount that people need
to contribute does need to be more because you don't
realize till you get there how much more money you're
going to need.
Speaker 4 (31:52):
So that one question ever all on the incentives, right,
because you've said it's unfair and people will save less
but quickly, if you didn't get the pension because you're working,
would that stop you working? Or would you work anyway?
Because you've talked about all those other benefits.
Speaker 6 (32:08):
Yeah, oh no, I didn't say work about incentive not
to work? By that think I did. So what was
the question?
Speaker 8 (32:15):
Would have?
Speaker 3 (32:15):
So?
Speaker 4 (32:16):
Would you if we said, because you because you're currently
working full time and you've got a good income outside
of your pension, that means you didn't get the pension,
would that stop you from working?
Speaker 8 (32:27):
Would it stop me from working?
Speaker 2 (32:29):
No?
Speaker 4 (32:30):
No, it wouldn't because I think most people would be similar,
because that's the argument to why it should be universal,
because we're going to stop people working.
Speaker 3 (32:38):
I don't think Yeah, I think that's I think that's
right too if I was going to continue working, because
I'll be in a hell of a lot more than
the pension.
Speaker 4 (32:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
Hey, by the way, on the retirement age, the AI
tells me just in my quick search that you can
access your superannuations from sixty but the age eligibility force
for the retirement savings, sorry, for the age pension eligibility
is sixty seven, which there at sixty seven. There we go, right,
(33:07):
we're not going to take another call, oht and we're
not going to take an ad break. We're going to
take another call.
Speaker 6 (33:11):
Kent.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
Hello, Hi.
Speaker 5 (33:15):
I was wanting to put in a perspective from someone
who's a bit younger that I was talking to. So
I'm yeah, I'm a bit older, but I was talking
with a twenty year old and he surprised me because
he was saying, we're talking about KEYV Saver and he
was putting away ten percent of his salary or his
(33:38):
innings into kiwisaver through his pay. He was doing that,
So that was a bit surprising. But then if I
think about it, I suppose he's being brought up with
this idea he has to save, and he doesn't have kids,
he doesn't have a partner at this At this stage,
he's living with his parents, so he can afford to
(34:00):
put ten percent of his salary away. So maybe it
wouldn't be that difficult to get people to save ten percent,
like well, possibly.
Speaker 3 (34:12):
When they're single with possibly when they're single with no
other responsibilities, you would probably that's a good good.
Speaker 4 (34:20):
Might go from three to ten. But I think what
we see with quite a few clients and quite a
few people we speak to is once they're already at
that eight or ten percent, so kind of because they
might have been saving for their first time, or they
might have been doing something and they might have been
a lull in their life where they had a little
bit of extra money. It's often what we see as
people are just accidentally they're still on that ten percent
or that high number. Because what people, more often than not,
(34:45):
once you get used to never seeing that money come
to your paycheck, it's just part of kind of it
just never gets there.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
Yeah, it's actually but the other thing about money, By
the way, as I write a note to myself, money
isn't what it used to be. But gosh, you, I
think people's ideas of what a lot of money is
these days and what actually money. I think there are
a lot of people who found that, you know, rates
have gone up, there's up there, the cost of the groceries.
(35:13):
We of course we know about deary and all that
sort of stuff, but really, I mean, and sometimes rates
have gone up massively and you're if you your rates
have gone up a couple of thousand bucks, then that's
another forty or fifty bucks a week, And I mean,
what's this? Money's too tight to mention that great song
bloody true.
Speaker 4 (35:31):
Yeah. The property thing I find really interesting because we
talk about you've just got to have your home mortgage free,
and that's what's going to set you up. But actually
now there's a lot of people that can't afford to
keep those houses because by the time you're paying five
or ten thousand dollars a year in rates, you've got
another four or five thousand dollars in insurance something goes wrong.
I mean, it's a really, really tough world for.
Speaker 3 (35:51):
Pension doesn't go very far, you think in house insurance
and if you're trying to have health insurance where you're
not going to have it, if you're just getting the pension,
I mean, which is the interesting trade off about what
you think the government should invest more and so people
don't need health insurance and stuff.
Speaker 4 (36:03):
And I'm not brave enough to say, but wow, the
truth is universal healthcare has to stop to boom fire.
Speaker 3 (36:10):
Okay, well we'll save that. Yeah, look it's eleven minutes too.
You've just been misbehaving now, Rupert.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
So because the other one that we haven't really talked
about on Winston's is the other reason he wants it
is because he wants to sort of spend all the
q he saving money in New Zealand businesses then on infrastructure,
which I think is really interesting, right because in my mind,
my job is to make as much money as I
can for my clients.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
My job money wherever you wan exactly. Yeah, So that's
a cute sounding idea, but I don't think he's I
just get the impressionble Winston's it's a cute sounding idea,
gets the sound bite. I mean, I asked him how
much it's going to cost and basically, i'd be fair
to say from his arts, so I don't think he
had a clue.
Speaker 4 (36:53):
No, he's just floating an idea.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
But what we've said, well, I think when you float
an idea, you shouldn't if it's workable or not. I
mean you shouldn't you know what it's going to cost.
You just need to ask chat GPT. We'll have a
good guess at it for you. It took me about
a minute and a half to find out a rough
idea of what it costs, and I compared it with
a couple of other people's reckons and okay, it's going
to be billions.
Speaker 4 (37:13):
Ten to twenty billion. Yeah, okay, we'll be.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
Back in a tick. It's we'll get time to squea.
I'll actually tell you what. We'll come back with some
texts in just a moment. It's ten minutes to six
news talks. He'd be news talk. Said, b look, we've
only got a couple months left with Rupert Carlo and
from kural Wealth and thanks for all your texts. I'm
going to read the top one here, which I think
is just to get Rupert's take on it. But this
(37:37):
person says the issue is going to be people hiding
their wealth and trusts as they do already. And yeah,
let's face it. I mean trusts are going to have
to be looked through, aren't they true?
Speaker 4 (37:49):
And so you can deal with that in two ways.
You either make it so that the beneficiaries or kind
of if you've settled into a trust then that all
goes there, or the other way. Many jurisdictions they'll do
gifting texts so as it moves in there. That's similar
to the inheritance tax because overseas the trust to use
as a way to avoid inheritance tax. So they kind
(38:12):
of they get at you through there, and that is
right though you've got to be quite a comprehensive system
around all of that to avoid the avoidance.
Speaker 3 (38:20):
I wonder how much of this is going to be
an election issue.
Speaker 4 (38:23):
Well, look, Nichola willis if at the Financial Service Council
last week, she made it very clear she thought it
was impossible for parties not to come with the coherent
superannuation and qsab A policy. She made it very clear
those two things need to go together. But she's also
on record of saying the current settings are unsustainable. Something
(38:45):
has to happen.
Speaker 3 (38:47):
I wonder how many people think we should have thrown
this out at the start of the show. Actually, how
many people believe, regardless of what you want and what
you like and what you hope and your dreams are,
how many people genuinely believe that the current settings are sustainable?
And I would have to say, can't be many if
they're if we're honest with ourselves.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
Ah yeah, but when are we ever honest with ourselves
where we believe what we are don't believe?
Speaker 3 (39:17):
Another one here says I'm fifty eight, I've paid my taxes,
and I understand the country can't afford it. I don't
have an issue with a fair means. With a fair
means test an important word. Yeah, if you're if you
are sixty five and working, why do you get super
I think there are a decent chunk of people who
do understand this is an issue. But the question is,
and that's why I don't trust the politicians is because
(39:39):
what chrisph Luxe and David Simia Winston Peter's idea of
fairers versus what Chloe Swarbrick and her colleagues idea of
sweet of fairers. As Night and day, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (39:51):
Well, that's the big issue, that's the biggest sue on consensus.
So Nicola Willis wants consensus from Barbara Edmonds on on superannuation.
Much chance of that? Well, if she agrees to radiation
sixty and she'll get consensus. But if she wants means testing,
Nicola Willison's never going to give consensus. So you're never
going to get consensus because they're both said at opposite ends.
Speaker 3 (40:12):
Oh well, it's interesting conversation and it's not gonna be
the last time we talk about it. Hey, thanks so
much for coming, mate, And if people want to check
out Curral Wealth, where do they go?
Speaker 4 (40:21):
Visit our website dub dub dub dot Coral Wealth Ko
you r a wee lt h dot co doo nz.
Speaker 3 (40:29):
Excellent mate, great to see you. If you've missed any
of this hour, any of ours actually been a ripper
of a show. I would suggest you go and tune
into it all from my interview with Willow Jene Prime
to chat about food and simple nutritious food without all
the fancy recipes with Alifs and gofton. It was a
fantastic Aaron, another excellent hour with Rupert Carla on from
Cora Wealth. My pronunciation of that's a bit dodgy, but
(40:51):
we'll work on it for next time. Thanks to my producer,
Tyra Award. Great work, Tyra, and we'll look forward to
your company. Next weekend, same time, same place. Sunday at
six is next. Catch you soon here.
Speaker 1 (41:05):
You win my head and my bed when I'm dreaming.
Speaker 3 (41:09):
I'm trying to pay my dream and you blow me
small hope.
Speaker 2 (41:14):
Now my scared and telling you when you can go, Pashi.
Speaker 4 (41:21):
You're not per.
Speaker 7 (41:25):
For more from the Weekend Collective.
Speaker 3 (41:27):
Listen live to news Talks it'd be weekends from three pm,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.