NZ Super and our rapidly ageing population

It’s February already. As you get older time seems to go faster, which means we feel like we are ageing more rapidly. One way to combat this is to watch all speeches in Parliament (replays if the House isn’t in session), so that time slows down to a long drag.

But this is a diversion from what this post is about. Read this instead:

Dr M. Claire Dale (Newsroom): Time to address our rapidly ageing population

The Retirement Commissioner has a statutory obligation to produce a report on retirement income policies every three years. This year’s review has had little fanfare so far and the terms of reference have only just been released. The report is expected by December 2019, which allows little time to properly examine the pressing issue of suitable policies for our rapidly ageing population.

In line with this Government’s emphasis on wellbeing and sustainability, the terms of reference stress that the review must assess “the effectiveness of current retirement policies for financially vulnerable and low-income groups, and recommendations for any policies that could improve their retirement outcomes”.

With respect to retirement income policies – the crux of the review – an Official Information Act request to the Ministry of Social Development revealed that more than 41,000 of people receiving New Zealand Superannuation also need the Accommodation Supplement to pay their private rental costs. They join with the other 249,000 people receiving the supplement, costing the Government more than $27 million a week. This suggests both that NZS is inadequate and private rents are too high.

We have been encouraged to save for our retirements to supplement NZ Super for a long time.

Critically important topics include the impact of current retirement income policies on current and future generations, and the fiscal sustainability of current NZS settings. An ageing population means a shrinking number of working-age people to support a growing number of old and increasingly frail people, which imposes obvious fiscal challenges.

And political challenges.

National under John Key and Bill English refused to address the age of eligibility of NZ Super.

Labour proposed Super changes leading into the 2014 election but were hammered from the left so dropped them by 2017.

NZ First secured a ‘no change’ clause in their coalition agreement with Labour.

The international environment needs to be brought into any discussion of these topics, as many countries, including Australia, have already increased their qualifying age for the pension above 65 and are in the process of increasing it further. Any discussion of this needs to recognise that not all sectors of the population have the option or ability to work past 65.

Or in some cases up to 65. United Future secured an agreement from National to look in to ‘flexi-super’ where you could choose the age you started receiving Super, but that turned out to be a farce as National had no intention of actually changing anything.

The hope is that this time the review is substantial, its recommendations are debated widely, and the Government has the courage to introduce policies appropriate for a rapidly ageing population.

I doubt that will happen. Winston Peters is likely to stand fast opposing any change unless it is for more Super for his voters. And Labour is likely to keep it in it’s ‘not a priority’ basket (or under their ‘ignore’ carpet).

 

Leave a comment

67 Comments

  1. duperez

     /  4th February 2019

    I wonder if the number receiving the Accommodation Supplement on top of NZ Super would be 41,000 if the mid 1970s superannuation scheme had continued.

    Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  4th February 2019

    ‘private rents are too high.’

    Address this and so many positives will flow for the ordinary,’hardworking NZ’er’.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  4th February 2019

      They are addressing it by making it worse just as predicted. Every time they hit landlords they hurt tenants and every time they hit employers they hurt employees.

      But being idiot socialists they are certain that more of the same stupidity will fix the problem.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  4th February 2019

        What about socialism where the government pays for your fiber internt connection …is that good socialism that doesnt have bad side effects.

        Every house that is no longer rented – government changes drove investors out-, still has some one living in it. How is that a bad thing.
        Giving landlords the biggest breaks – negative gearing, interest deductions, no CGT outside bright line period- means they have it so much easier. Little things that you moan about mean nothing in the big scheme of things.
        And the biggest effect nearly 150% RISE IN HOUSE PRICES since 2008 wasnt ‘labours fault.

        Reply
        • sorethumb

           /  4th February 2019

          So that’s why you are pro-immigration?

          A conventional economic analysis of large -scale immigration impacts
          The distinctive feature of the New Zealand economy is that land is an important input into the productive process. This is obvious with the agricultural, fishing and forestry sectors but it also applies to international tourism. In a simple model of the New Zealand economy where the supply of land is fixed, and New Zealand’s isolation means it is not a ‘natural’ location for the production of a broad range of internationally traded goods and services, then an increase in the labour supply through large scale immigration will reduce the marginal product of labour. As a result:

           Real wages will fall
           Owners of land will benefit
           There will be an outflow of ‘native’ labour in search of higher wages in Australia
           The economy will be bigger, but average incomes will fall
           Resources will flow into low value service production.
          http://www.tailrisk.co.nz/documents/TheSuperdiversityMyth.pdf

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  4th February 2019

            The government doesn’t pay for the fibre internet; we do, out of tax money that could have been used for something else.

            Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  4th February 2019

          As I’ve explained to Blazer many times (because logic and facts pass straight through his brain leaving no detectable impression) the landlord took his money out of housing and put it elsewhere permanently while the purchaser who would have had to build a new house didn’t. End result is less investment in housing, fewer houses and higher rents and prices.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  4th February 2019

            ‘elsewhere’

            listen shallow as a petrie dish scientist..economics micro or macro is not your forte..go to bed.

            Reply
  3. Duker

     /  4th February 2019

    760,000 receive Super
    So 41K is just over 5%
    Wheres the problem ?

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  4th February 2019

      They join with the other 249,000 people receiving the supplement, ‘.

      So roughly 10% of the adult population need gummint help to pay for their…accomodation.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  4th February 2019

        Different problem.
        Accom Suppl is DESIGNED that way, the basic benefit is normally boosted by this to make sure the additional money is given on the particular circumstances

        Anyway, this story is about the Super specifically, and NO the basic rate isnt too small when its only a 5% problem

        Reply
  4. Geoffrey

     /  4th February 2019

    The population is not rapidly ageing nor is the number qualifying for super unexpected. Those about to qualify are the same people who have been paying into the fund for the past 45 years. If the Government had not plundered the fund it would still be available as promised
    Time to stop the rot: if this generation of contributors penalise current seperannuants, the same will happen to them in turn

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  4th February 2019

      what fund would that be then?

      Reply
      • Griff.

         /  4th February 2019

        They think they have been paying into a fund.
        When what they have been doing is paying their parents super since Rob killed the super fund back in 1974.
        You can see the quality of intellect involved when it starts with we dont have an aging population.
        What he is really saying is keep paying us now…because screw young people.
        A look at the demographic figures will tell you the present system is unsupportable. Super as it is now will not be around for the next generation.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  4th February 2019

          yes it will.
          Which costs more in NZ Super , or the compulsory education system ( and add in pre school funding)
          Education!
          Is compulsory education funded from those who have or have had children. of course not
          Why should we break down pensions as ‘less deserving’ when we wouldnt do it for other costs.

          Then you have to consider the nett cost of Super, as of course those on the pension pay considerable amounts of tax both income tax and GST
          id seen its something like 25% of the cost of NZ super.
          Maybe we can took at negative gearing and other tax rorts that mostly go to older people ( 50+)

          Reply
        • Griff.

           /  4th February 2019

          Superannuation will soon outstrip spending on health and education due to New Zealand’s ageing population, an economist says.

          ASB chief economist Nick Tuffley said the country’s changing demographic dictated government expenditure.

          Spending on New Zealand Superannuation alone was $11b last year. It cost $5b in 2000.

          Tuffley said most wealthy countries have had lower birth rates, and with families having fewer children and living longer, it caused a “double whammy”.

          In the 2016/2017 financial year, the Government spent $16b on health and $13b on education.

          Tuffley said spending on health will likely increase in coming years due to the same demographic change.

          Spending on education will also grow but not at the rate of superannuation and healthcare, he said.

          https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/100479864/what-is-the-governments-biggest-core-expense

          http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/older_people/pop-ageing-in-nz.aspx

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  4th February 2019

            What was the net or actual cost of the super after tax paid by those over 65 is deducted ?

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  4th February 2019

              How the fuck would I know why would I care?
              The net growth in cost is still the same ratio.
              Super is unsupportable in its present form as the generational bulge retires
              This has been known by economists for decades.
              It was one of the drivers behind the policy of rampant immigration we have seen in the last decade in an effort to increase the work force to pay for retirement benefits .
              The result has been house price inflation and overloaded infrastructure.
              Basically the older generation fucking over the children.
              No party will address it honestly as it will result in a loss of votes.

            • PartisanZ

               /  4th February 2019

              Addressing the issue with regard to votes is precisely what the issue is all about, surely?

              Rogerednomics gave carte blanche for the older generation to fuck over their own children … IMHO, there’s no comparison to ‘Baby Boomers’ simply continuing to receive their NZSuper ‘entitlement’ …

              One ameliorating factor would be if people who don’t need it didn’t collect it maybe?

              Deal with Housing and Infrastructure in their own rights rather than shifting the burden to Superannuitants …

            • Blazer

               /  4th February 2019

              ‘if people who don’t need it didn’t collect it maybe?’

              maybe not …’need’ is over ridden by…’want’ …i.e I only need 1 house to live in…but I want 20 investment properties….because I ..DO.

            • Gezza

               /  4th February 2019

              The argument for taking National Superannuation from those who don’t need it is that they paid into it and that, like any other superannuation or investment scheme they may also have paid subs to, they are therefore entitled to be paid out from this one on reaching the age of eligibility. It’s hard to argue otherwise, imo.

            • PartisanZ

               /  4th February 2019

              Weeeeeeeeeeeeeell …

              Partly because you ‘want’ … maybe?

              That’s what the whole capitalist neoliberal economic system is aimed at nowadays, a compliant, ‘productive & efficient’ population through endless consumer ‘satisfaction’ of “wants” … however temporary such satisfaction may be …

              Including the perennial ‘want for security’ which the system’s own built-in insecurity can never satisfy … That’s not the objective of built-in insecurity after all, is it?

              Or do you want investment properties simply because our essentially feudal-colonial taxation system encourages you to ‘own’ them as ‘the road to riches’ rather than invest in some productive industry … like in solving problems brought on by ‘want’ with innovative new solutions …

            • Blazer

               /  4th February 2019

              @g…’The argument for taking National Superannuation from those who don’t need it is that they paid into it and that, like any other superannuation’…thats not how it works…Super is paid from Crown revenue.

            • Gezza

               /  4th February 2019

              @B

              The Government’s main sources of revenue come from tax, levies, fees, investment income and from the sales of goods and services.

              Total core Crown revenue for the 2016/17 year was $81.8 billion. Tax revenue is the major source of core Crown revenue; this totalled $75.6 billion in the 2016/17 financial year.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  4th February 2019

              I have heard people say that it’s a right, as people have paid taxes all their working lives, but this doesn’t take into account that they have had other things from this tax, and that someone who’s an ordinary worker will certainly not have paid enough tax to cover 25 years of super.

            • Blazer

               /  4th February 2019

              @G..yes and…this is what you need to validate…’National Superannuation from those who don’t need it is that they paid into it ‘

              I regard it as very ‘sloppy’ by your own criteria.

            • Gezza

               /  4th February 2019

              @G..yes and…this is what you need to validate…’National Superannuation from those who don’t need it is that they paid into it ‘

              The argument I would have thought is obvious. If they pay tax part of their tax is taken & invested so it will be available for their National Superannuation. If those who would prefer not to have part of their tax paid into the National Super fund we to be able ot opt out of that & to instead invest it themselves in other funds then their argument is unsustainable.

              Where is the flaw in their argument?

            • Blazer

               /  4th February 2019

              @G..the flaw is glaringly obvious..they HAVE NOT PAID INTO A SUPER fund..because there is not one.Payments are made from Govt revenue.

              As if you can opt out of specific income and indirect taxes…

            • Gezza

               /  4th February 2019

              @ Blazer

              Government revenue is principally tax revenue. For those who pay tax, part of everybody’s tax goes into the Super Fund.

              https://treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/financial-management-and-advice/revenue-and-expenditure

              https://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/nz-super-fund-explained/purpose-and-mandate

              The problem every party faces when they suggest cutting people out of eligibility for National Superannuation is that the argument for entitlement from people with modest savings who have worked & paid tax all their lives is the same one as those who don’t need it: I paid my taxes, so I am entitled to it.

              Introducing a system that cuts or limits eligibility by income or asset testing is always likely to be unpopular because at some point a significant group of voters is going to consider they have been penalised, as they don’t think they’re rich enough to not receive the full whack, and there will be plenty of others who are rich enough not to need the full whack, but who have the same argument any: I paid my bloody taxes.

              It will be interesting to see where this goes. Parties have been too scared to move on restricting eligibility in case it sees them out the door at the next election.

            • Gezza

               /  4th February 2019

              *anyway

            • Blazer

               /  4th February 2019

              @G a fatuous and facile argument.
              According to you by being a taxpayer you are entitled to….’part of everybody’s tax goes into the Super Fund.’

              Listen carefully…National Super is NOT A FUND…Kiwi Saver is a fund..the ‘Cullen’ Fund is NOT National Super!!

            • Gezza

               /  4th February 2019

              @ B

              Oh, I see your point now. Yes I agree. It’s not a fund. But the argument is still that they paid their taxes and therefore they are entitled to receive National Superannuation payments.

              And proposing to restrict eligibility is an election loser.

            • Blazer

               /  4th February 2019

              ‘But the argument is still that they paid their taxes’

              so who haven’t ..paid their taxes?

            • Gezza

               /  4th February 2019

              I’ve made the point I wanted. You’ve exceeded my level of interest now. Watching telly.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  4th February 2019

            NZ Superannuation is relatively cheap and effective. Even at its peak when the baby boomers all hit retirement, the cost of super is not expected to rise above 8% of GDP, which is well below the cost of many other OECD countries now.
            Changes to eligibility are a good move (from the ridiculously generous full pension after 10 years rule), but I don’t see NZ Super changing too much at all in the medium term.

            Reply
            • PartisanZ

               /  4th February 2019

              Just as I suspected …

              We could afford Flexi-Super … Earlier retirement even maybe? Which is what any First World Nation in its right mind should be doing …

              I suspect the objective of all this “aging population Super non-affordability” campaign is considerably more sinister than it appears … to keep older people trapped in the system longer, partly as an example for younger people maybe?

              Almost like a built-in insecurity fear promotion campaign … “Growing old won’t save you!” …

  5. sorethumb

     /  4th February 2019

    Winston Peters on Bill to raise minimum residency for super
    -8:00
    “they wouldn’t allow Nuien, Tokolaun …. while they brought in 70+,000 who qualify after 10 years”
    https://www.radiolive.co.nz/home/on-demand/morning-talk/2018/10/winston-peters-on-bill-to-raise-minimum-residency-for-super.html

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  4th February 2019

      Recently the immigration category for immigrants bringing in their parents, as despite signing papers meaning the parents werent to acess the benefit system, the numbers were rsising of just such elderly people getting emergency benefits as they have no means of living.

      And while the super requires 10 years residency, if they havent been here long enough, they just access the unemployment benefit instead until the 10 years clock has ticked over.
      I had some elderly chinese neighbors exactly in that situation, after they became eligible for NZ super they moved to Australia – to follow their kids who left them behind- and we would still be paying them the pension there

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  4th February 2019

        Granny dumping…then following the dumpers to Aussie and being paid by NZ adds insult to…injury.

        Reply
      • Duker

         /  4th February 2019

        I meant to say the ‘parents category’ has been suspended

        Reply
  6. sorethumb

     /  4th February 2019

    Someone analysed NZ born baby boomers and pointed out that we have imported a lot of superannuitants. I can’t find the link but was Iconoclast on Croaking Cassandra.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  4th February 2019

      Over 80,000 ‘european’ super annuitants bought their pensions with them or became eligible here and receive no nett NZ super.

      Reply
  7. David

     /  4th February 2019

    Super is easily affordable, because of Roger Douglas the economic genius he had the taxpayers escape the gold plated state servant schemes which are bankrupting other countries. Because of Douglas Kiwis have a reasonable state pension for everyone rather than a meagre standard one and an overly generous one for a few.
    Most European countries are paying more as a% of GDP now than NZ will do at its peak as they lavish vast sums on ex state workers. Thank you Sir Roger.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  4th February 2019

      Muldoon introduced National Super as an election bribe.

      Reply
    • Duker

       /  4th February 2019

      GSF was closed to new members in 1992 .
      What did Roger Douglas have to do with that?

      Its still running BTW
      http://www.gsfa.govt.nz/

      What has happened is now super funds are invested in the market and not in low interest government bonds

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  4th February 2019

        Some 50K pensioners in the GSF and every year about 2000 ‘leave’ and another 1300 become eligible

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  4th February 2019

          I doubt this is correct. The GSF is the government superannuation fund – it’s the public service superannuation scheme for government employees who choose to belong to it. I stayed with it but many colleagues of mine opted for other private schemes when they got the opportunity.

          This is not the National Superannuation fund that everyone gets a chunk of at age 65.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  4th February 2019

            GSF numbers are from the GSF website…it isn’t national super. It still around as it wasn’t closed to new members till 91.
            Seems like existing members contributions are $36 mill, while the government pays $500 mill or so for those who are retired

            Reply
  8. Gerrit

     /  4th February 2019

    The Cullen Superfund becomes available for draw down to fund NZ Super in 2020.

    “The Fund operates independently from the Government of the day. No withdrawals are permitted before 2020, and even after the Government starts withdrawing, the Fund will keep growing for many decades”.

    https://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/nz-super-fund-explained/history

    I cant find any reference to how much this fund will ease the burden on the taxpayer, from memory 100% but I stand corrected.

    This quote from the same web site is confusing;

    “Government contributions to the Super Fund were suspended between 2009 and 2017. In December 2017 contributions resumed, with an initial payment of $500 million planned for the financial year to 2018. From around 2035/36, the Government will begin to withdraw money from the Fund to help pay for New Zealand Superannuation. The Fund will continue to grow until it peaks in size in 2070s”.

    So the state can make withdrawals from 2020 but the plan is 2035? Is one the start date when withdrawals are planned for but the scheme wont be self funding till 2035? Requiring state top ups above the withdrawal rate?

    One thing to guard against is that the likes of Peters and Jones don’t plunder the capital for vanity projects (if they get past the hurdle of the 2020 election.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  4th February 2019

      Plunder ? One of their big success policies, like Kiwisaver. Just like in a few years so will be Kiwibuild.

      Reply
  9. Blazer

     /  4th February 2019

    ‘“Government contributions to the Super Fund were suspended between 2009 and 2017. ‘

    yes the National Govt deprived the fund of a huge windfall in a bull market for stocks and shares…why do you think?

    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  4th February 2019

      “yes the National Govt deprived the fund of a huge windfall in a bull market for stocks and shares…why do you think?”

      What services should they have cut back on to fund this investment?

      What comment would you have made when National announced that they were doing so to speculate on the sharemarket?

      How much of your own money did you invest at this time, as I’m sure you were certain this bull market was about to occur?

      Given all this, why are you not rich from your sharemarket millions?

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  4th February 2019

        What services should they have cut back on to fund this investment?

        -don’t hand out corporate welfare,as they did,spend less on consultants,forget about tax cuts.

        What comment would you have made when National announced that they were doing so to speculate on the sharemarket?

        -what do you think Sovereign funds all around the world do?

        How much of your own money did you invest at this time, as I’m sure you were certain this bull market was about to occur?

        I made investments at this time.

        Given all this, why are you not rich from your sharemarket millions?

        How do you know what wealth I may or may not have?

        4 home runs…get a new ..pitcher.

        Reply
    • Gerrit

       /  4th February 2019

      Blazing Negative Squirrels…first reaction is to pick up on a lack of contributions. by National?

      “Most who take this view ask us to imagine the Super Fund was our own personal savings account. If our investments were losing value and we were spending more than we were bringing in, surely we’d cut our savings so that we could live within our means. You don’t save when you haven’t got enough to put food on the table now, they say. That makes no sense. You certainly don’t borrow to keep saving. That’s irrational. And borrow to invest in the most volatile market ever? That’s just nuts.”

      https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/super-fund-the-pros-and-cons-of-contributions

      There was no a spare change lying around and the state would have needed to borrow the money to put in the fund.

      The Pundit article is worth a read in full including the comments to get a back ground why contributions were suspended.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  4th February 2019

        As someone who spent alot of time in senior management…i.e who attained a position where he could lay the blame on underlings and fire them…what do you think about companies borrowing to pay…dividends?

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  4th February 2019

          Banks sometimes let borrowers capitalize interest payments when they cant afford the payments and the bank doesnt want a bad loan on the accounts.
          gerrit lives in the ‘little person’ financial world

          Reply
          • Gerrit

             /  4th February 2019

            Of course in the little peoples financial world they realise that all the bank is doing is kicking the can down the road. Those missed payments (interest, principal and possibly penalty ) have to be made up at a later date, they are deferred only.

            In the big peoples financial world they think that the bank will forgo the payments.

            Reply
        • Gerrit

           /  4th February 2019

          Silly unless you have an infallible crystal ball that future earnings will cover the cost this time and in the future. However there are times when it is done.

          Worth a squirrel read…

          https://smallbusiness.chron.com/companies-borrow-money-pay-cash-dividend-73844.html

          Mainly done for tax purposes, or to mystify those share holders relying on dividend payouts and who cant read a set of accounts. Wont fool a share market analyst though.

          Also accountant slight of hand if you want to retain earnings for another purposes but pay dividends as well.

          Reply
  10. Random thought, while fiddling with tax brackets and top tax rates introduce a second tax scheme, say 3c on the dollar across the board, that goes directly into the Cullen/super fund, then its unable to be misspent by governments of both colors, whether it is on unaffordable tax cuts, or on failed free tertiary education policies etc….

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  4th February 2019

      Cullen fund cant be spent on general spending anyway.

      Reply
      • yes but in general our taxes are spent as politicians see fit, some of it needs ring fencing for super only, much like our ACC levies….

        Reply
        • Gerrit

           /  4th February 2019

          Problem is that the Superfund managers want their cake and eat it too.

          “n a submission to the Tax Working Group, the Super Fund says such a regime should offer a tax rate of half or less the current 28% corporate tax rate for a meaningful part of the life of the asset. Additionally there should be no further tax impost on profit distribution to either domestic or foreign investors, and full deductibility of third party non-recourse funding should be included.

          Should a capital gains tax be introduced, the Super Fund says nationally significant infrastructure should be eligible for an exemption on exit. Additionally the Super Fund wants the ability to fast track required regulatory approvals such as Resource Management Act approvals, and for foreign skilled labour to be allowed to be used to help with rapid construction.”

          https://www.interest.co.nz/business/96251/nz-super-fund-eyeing-aucklands-proposed-light-rail-network-wants-nationally

          Gee wonder which other investment houses will get those types of concessions?

          Certainly not those supplying the funding for the average joe blog building a house or a factory.

          They are going to getthe full whack of taxes including CGT.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  4th February 2019

            Cullen fund has been paying taxes on its gains for some time.
            NZ tax paid (since inception) $6.25 billion – from their fact sheet.

            Thats about 2/3 of the funding the (labour) government has put in. That side of its is usually not mentioned by the nay sayers
            plus
            At the Fund’s peak in the 2070s, the capital withdrawals and tax
            payments combined total 21% of the total net cost of pensions, and more than 40%of the incremental cost increase due to the rising proportion of retirees in thepopulation.

            https://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/sites/default/files/documents-sys/NZSF%20Media%20Factsheet%20(March%202018).pdf

            Reply
          • Gerrit

             /  4th February 2019

            There is no argument about the Cullen Fund paying taxes.

            The argument is that they want favourable tax rates (over 50% less than what the rest of us pay) , no CGT (when everyone is likely to be hit with one on their investment if Labour has their way), dividend tax adjustments of no taxation (not available to any other investor), RMA non compliance (not available to other investors), bring in foreign skilled labour (instead of training locals to get of the couch).

            Read it again slowly

            “In a submission to the Tax Working Group, the Super Fund says such a regime should offer a tax rate of half or less the current 28% corporate tax rate for a meaningful part of the life of the asset. Additionally there should be no further tax impost on profit distribution to either domestic or foreign investors, and full deductibility of third party non-recourse funding should be included.

            Should a capital gains tax be introduced, the Super Fund says nationally significant infrastructure should be eligible for an exemption on exit. Additionally the Super Fund wants the ability to fast track required regulatory approvals such as Resource Management Act approvals, and for foreign skilled labour to be allowed to be used to help with rapid construction.”

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  4th February 2019

              I understand the current tax paid includes rises in value of investments less losses, as they have had some clangers

            • As our retirement fund, taxing them is skimming our pension fund anyways, allowing money to be used and abused elsewhere. The more money in the cullen fund, the better my retirement prospects are!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s