Retirement and Superannuation Policy
Daymond Goulder-Horobin
Public
Seen by 113
Retirement and for the most part superannuation policy is a key issue in this coming election. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on key issues in the debate as well as researched and informed discussion on both sides, including:
Should we commit to keeping the Retirement age at 65. A number of arguments exist and its largely to do with the capacity to work at or above 65, for instance we are living longer but that may not necessarily mean that we can work for longer. On the other hand it is argued that if it is raised to 67 then kiwis will still likely get the same amount as people did the day it was put to 65.
Should the pension be income-tested?
And More Soon
Tane Harre Sun 13 Aug 2017 8:01AM
A UBI at pension level would cost a little over $69,299,520,000/year if you paid everyone over 15. That is after tax too. We currently spend about $9,000,000,000/year on SA.
(I have removed the tax as it is really silly for the govt to say here is $1, now give us $0.25 in tax......What? No. We paid you a dollar!)
Bruce King Sun 13 Aug 2017 8:14PM
In an alternative view, a UBI doesn't cost anything as it is merely a redistribution of income.
How much does it cost you if in a year you are taxed $5K, $15K or $25K extra but then receive back $15K as a UBI?
Colin England Mon 14 Aug 2017 12:18AM
A UBI isn't a cost - it's the funding of the economy.
Daymond Goulder-Horobin Mon 14 Aug 2017 10:12AM
It may need to still be adjusted by age. Younger people have the capacity to work 40 hours a week while the older generations may only be able to handle 20 hours. Therefore perhaps something like a $200 UBI and then another +$200 retirement would work or something similar.
Tane Harre Wed 16 Aug 2017 1:26AM
That doesn't work if you think about it. Say there is a tax of 50% to pay for the UBI that funds the private sector that gets taxed 50%. Each time the money goes around your tax income is halved yet you still have the same outgoing.
Tane Harre Wed 16 Aug 2017 9:36AM
I do agree with the UBI. I just don't agree with the graphic. A better picture for me would have been comparing the UBI to raising the minimum wage. Since 2007 we have raised the minimum wage (hopefully with a roll on effect) by $180/week without blinking.
Colin England Wed 16 Aug 2017 10:57PM
Say there is a tax of 50% to pay for the UBI that funds the private sector that gets taxed 50%.
You misunderstand.
The money is spent by government into the economy. This is by wages, salaries and the UBI. These people are going to want services that they're willing to spend that money upon. Most of those services are going to be provided by the private sector.
As that money passes through the private sector it's returned to the government in various ways such as FTT, GST, and charges for using the states resources.
There's also a multiplier effect. Each dollar will pass through multiple transactions before it's returned meaning the tax at each transaction can be minimised.
Each time the money goes around your tax income is halved yet you still have the same outgoing.
The government is creating the money in the first place. It's a not a fixed amount of cash and that's it. In fact, I'd expect the government to run at a deficit. It should be a minimal deficit that reflects the development of the economy but still a deficit. To cover that deficit they create more money.
Tane Harre Thu 17 Aug 2017 8:47AM
I had forgotten about the multiplier effect. I have serious doubts about the government creating that much money in the first place though. Remember money is based on trust. The US went through a period of quantitative easing (creating money) and their dollar dropped compared to ours. The only reason they were able to stay up was because they have the largest military (Eg; they are able to back their dollar with force) which gave trust in their currency.
Colin England Thu 17 Aug 2017 11:43PM
Remember money is based on trust.
There's no elimination of trust. We have a viable economy supporting it.
And no matter what, governments can't actually go bankrupt like private banks can.
I have serious doubts about the government creating that much money in the first place though.
The private banks create billions every year. It's what's been driving housing prices over the last few years.
I suggest that we stop the private banks from creating money at the same time as we bring in a UBI. We'd probably see a decrease of money in the system over time as bank money is paid off.
The US went through a period of quantitative easing (creating money) and their dollar dropped compared to ours.
It was a slight drop. England, the EU and several other countries did the quantitative easing as well. What they were actually trying to do was to crash their countries currency so as to boost export trade which is why several economists and other commentators referred to it as a trade war. That was also the reason why no currency really dropped much - they essentially all dropped together.
The only reason they were able to stay up was because they have the largest military (Eg; they are able to back their dollar with force) which gave trust in their currency.
Nope. It was because:
- The US$ is still the Reserve Currency (This really is a licence for them to print money. In fact, it was their printing of money that got them to drop the Gold Standard that they were supposed to maintain according to the Bretton Woods Agreement)
- Other nations were also engaging in quantitative easing dropping their own currencies. In fact, NZ was one of the few who didn't which is why we saw our currency rise
Colin England · Sat 12 Aug 2017 10:41PM
Just cancel it an put in place a UBI. Then people can work or not as they choose.