Is more means testing on the cards after big Budget changes?
Perhaps suggesting it's more about the political philosophy than cash flow, Tibshraeny says the savings from the KiwiSaver means testing, in particular, are meagre.
'The Inland Revenue reckons means testing that government contribution would only save $40 million a year. That isn't much money at all for the government.'
She says the policy went against official advice.
'The officials advised the Government to just scrap the government contribution altogether rather than means test it. It would've gone down like a lead balloon with the public if politicians did that.'
In fact, that wasn't the only policy that eschewed official advice. The Government was also warned against raising the default KiwiSaver contribution rate in the current economic climate.
'They were worried about the impact it would have on businesses and thought that it might actually offset some of the positives in terms of what the Government's trying to do to stimulate growth and support businesses.'
Tibshraeny says means testing can annoy some voters, but in recent conversations she's had with the new head of the Treasury, Ian Rennie, there seems to be an appetite for it.
'He talked a lot about the need for means testing, and I just guess the cost of having all these universal policies - the Government giving money to people who don't really need it.'
Listen to the full episode of The Prosperity Project for more
The podcast is hosted by Nadine Higgins, an experienced broadcaster and a financial adviser at Enable Me.
You can follow the podcast at iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes are released every Monday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
What Happens If My Partner Dies Without A Will?
, Money Correspondent Got questions? RNZ is launching a new podcast, No Stupid Questions with Susan Edmunds, next month. We'd love to hear more of your questions about money and the economy. You can send through written questions, like these ones, but - even better - you can drop us a voice memo to our email questions@ What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies without a will? I have been living with my partner since the late 1980s. Our house, main bank accounts and one car are in both names. Our latest car - bought last year from joint bank accounts - could only be registered in his name, due to changes in NZTA rules. I have a separate bank account in my name, which has a small amount of inherited money. He also has a separate bank account with some money from his family and a few shares in his name, which were acquired through his work. Many years ago, I was told that if either of us died, then any assets in joint names would go to the surviving partner. We have not made wills, have no children, my parents have both died and his father has died, but recently, I saw that if someone has a spouse or partner, and parents, but no children, the spouse received the personal effects, $155,000 and two-thirds of what is left. The deceased person's parents get the remaining third. That means, if I die first, all I have goes to him, which is what I want, but if my partner dies before me, does his remaining parent inherit a third of our house (meaning I will need to sell it, as I do not have funds to buy her out in my 60s), plus a third of our two cars, a third of our joint bank account money, and a third of his KiwiSaver, private superannuation, bank accounts, insurance payouts and shares in his name? His mother is in residential care with dementia and already has enough funds to cover her care for decades. I am worried I may become homeless. What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies? As a starting point, it might be re-assuring to note that assets that you hold in a joint name would pass to you, so if you own your house jointly, it would be yours, if your partner died. I went to Public Trust principal trustee Michelle Pope for more detail to answer the rest of your question. She said, when someone died, their estate would be distributed according to the Administration Act. "In the writer's case, if they die first without a will, their entire estate would pass to their partner, as they have no children or surviving parents," she said. "Assets held in joint names, listed by the writer as the house, main bank accounts and a car, will automatically pass to the surviving partner. However, it's important to confirm whether the property is legally owned jointly or in equal/unequal shares. "If it's jointly owned, it will pass by survivorship. If not, the deceased's share will need to be administered as part of their estate, which can add complexity. "If the writer's partner dies first without a will and has a surviving parent, Section 77(3) of the Administration Act 1969 applies. In this scenario, the writer would receive all personal chattels (including the car solely owned by the partner), a prescribed amount of $155,000 plus interest and two-thirds of the remaining estate. "The surviving parent would receive the remaining one-third of the estate. For clarity, the assets owned solely by the partner would appear to be a bank account, some shares, KiwiSaver, private superannuation and insurance. "Given the house is owned jointly, the writer can expect that the house will pass to them by what's called 'survivorship' in legal language and will not form part of their partner's estate. "It goes without saying that I'd encourage the writer and their partner to create wills. A will that clearly outlines their wishes can help remove any uncertainty when a person dies and can make the estate administration process a lot easier for loved ones." Having separated earlier this year, I chose to move out of the family home where my ex still resides. She is paying the mortgage, refuses to pay the house insurance or rates etc. the roof is leaking and she refuses to agree to making repairs, the ceiling is now ruined and mouldy. Though she has indicated she wishes to buy me out, she has not shared any form of offer or plan. She now refuses to engage in any form of correspondence at all. My questions - how do I go about necessary repairs to the house and how do I get her to move out, so that the house can be sold? Online research seems to point to tenancy/landlord situations which don't apply in this case. Is it actually just time for a lawyer to sort this out? Yes, I think the best - and really only - way to deal with this is to go to a lawyer as soon as possible. Can you please answer some questions about the way supermarkets operate. If I deliberately deceive customers, it's called deception. If I deliberately load, unload prices to make you think you are getting a better deal when you are not, this is manipulation to enhance your profit. Surely both of the above are profiteering and fraudulent. Supermarkets - and all retailers - have rules they have to comply with, when it comes to discounting, and it is illegal for businesses to mislead shoppers about prices. You can complain to the Commerce Commission, if you think someone has got it wrong. There is a lot of focus on supermarket pricing at the moment and Consumer NZ has been vocal about the current regime not being effective enough. It is calling for tougher penalties and infringement notice powers.
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Gisborne advocate criticises Kāinga Ora land sales amid ‘housing crisis'
'We currently plan to sell about 36 hectares of land that is no longer needed for either new social housing projects or for urban development work,' an information sheet on land sales said. Land included a range of larger sites in Auckland and Wellington, as well as 'smaller vacant sites across the country which are not needed for social housing projects'. Kāinga Ora properties on the market and properties sold were also listed online. These included properties in Gisborne, on the Coast and at Te Karaka. A social housing property for sale as at July 31 is 4 Tui St in Gisborne. Vacant land Kāinga Ora has for sale in Kaiti as at July 31 is at 43 Ranfurly St, 5 Lawrence St, 23 Cavendish Cres and 28 Dalton St. Land at Tolaga Bay is also on the market – at 2,4,6,8 and 10 Discovery St and 1 and 9 Adventure Ave. Elgin properties sold as at July 31 were 47, 49, 51 and 53 Centennial Cres, as well as 8 Puriri St. In Te Karaka, the property at 22 Currie St had sold. 'Like any developer, we are continually reviewing the land we own to see if it is still fit for purpose, and as such, it is expected that the divestment of sites will be an ongoing process,' the Kāinga Ora information said. 'It is likely that further sites will be added to our divestment programme in the future.' In a separate statement to the Gisborne Herald, the agency said: 'Market conditions are continually evolving, demand for new housing can change, and more detailed due diligence may mean sites intended for redevelopment no longer work for us.' Lizz Crawford, the manager of Oasis Community Shelter in Kaiti, was concerned with the sales of Kāinga Ora property amid a "housing crisis". Photo / Gisborne Herald Crawford said the selling of properties was part of an ongoing crisis. 'It appears we have not only a housing crisis, but a societal crisis, which has more than likely exacerbated the lack of housing for the most vulnerable of society. 'There are countries that have actively reduced homelessness, and it is sad to see that New Zealand is not one of them. We have done the opposite and not only turned a blind eye, but perhaps our backs, too,' she said. East Coast MP Dana Kirkpatrick outlined the Government's policy on housing as well as helping the homeless. In response to questions about homelessness and housing, East Coast MP Dana Kirkpatrick said the Government had recently released the latest Homelessness Insights Report and announced 'a series of actions to reduce the number of people living without shelter, including sleeping rough in New Zealand'. The report 'confirms what frontline organisations have been saying ... there are too many people in housing need. Accurate numbers are difficult to pin down. People without shelter often move around and may avoid engaging with government services, but it's clear we have a real problem', she said. The Government was making 'a serious response' to housing issues, Kirkpatrick said. 'At present, over $550 million is spent annually across a range of programmes run by multiple agencies, including Transitional Housing, Housing First, Rapid Rehousing and many other support services. 'We've made it clear that officials should engage with frontline providers to do this because they are the organisations working at the frontline of this problem. We will not be returning to the previous Government's large-scale emergency housing model, which cost over $1 million a day at its peak and was a social disaster.' The Government was reviewing housing support services, she said. 'Our aim is to make the system simpler, more effective and reduce duplication. We want to fund what works.' 'We're also looking at ways to improve the social housing system to ensure it delivers the right homes in the right places for the right people. The Government has recently changed Kāinga Ora's funding settings to enable the agency to build more one-bedroom units. About 50% of people on the Housing Register require a one-bedroom unit, but they only make up about 12% of Kāinga Ora's housing stock.' Some new homes were blessed recently on Kowhai St in Te Hapara and were ready for tenants to move in.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Boaties Soon Off The Hook: ACT Ends Unfair Petrol Tax
ACT MP and keen boatie Cameron Luxton is celebrating a long-overdue win for fairness with the end of petrol excise taxes for boat users and other off-road fuel users. 'Fuel tax is supposed to fund roads. So why have boat owners been forced to pay it when their vehicles never touch a road,' says Luxton. 'It's always been unfair, which is why ACT has been fighting since 2021 to scrap this boatie tax. Now, it's finally happening. 'Following the 2023 election, ACT secured a coalition commitment to replace petrol excise with road user charges (RUCs) across the board with progress confirmed this week. 'This means you'll no longer be taxed at the pump when filling up your boat, lawnmower, quad bike, or chainsaw. 'For boaties, that's around 70 cents a litre in excise saved, plus another 10 cents in GST that gets put on top. That's $120 off a 150-litre tank. It's a massive win for fairness and common sense. 'The shift to RUCs won't happen overnight – it's part of a broader transition and will involve public consultation – but the Government's direction is clear, and ACT will make sure this promise is kept. 'The day I get to go fishing without paying road tax will be a good one – and it's thanks to Kiwis who've supported ACT.'
