Little Known Law Offers Savvy Kiwis The Opportunity To Supercharge Their Retirement Savings
Press Release – XtraPension
Not many people are aware that on November 9, 2020, New Zealand law changed such that any part of a UK State Pension gained from making voluntary contributions is no longer deducted from NZ Superannuation.
A little-known legal amendment is being leveraged by savvy New Zealanders and expat Brits to supercharge their retirement savings.
Not many people are aware that on November 9, 2020, New Zealand law changed such that any part of a UK State Pension gained from making voluntary contributions is no longer deducted from NZ Superannuation.
'That means that New Zealanders can effectively claim two retirement incomes (plus any KiwiSaver or other private income they may have),' says John Ring, Operations Director of XtraPension – an Irish based company that helps people around the world to maximise their UK State Pension.
To qualify for the UK State Pension, you must have worked in the UK for at least three years. The opportunity is available to men born after April 5, 1951 (i.e. aged up to 74), and women born after April 5, 1953 (i.e. aged up to 72).
To get any pension, you need a minimum of 10 years of National Insurance contributions, and to receive the full pension, you need 35 years of NI contributions. But the kicker is that you can buy up to six past years of any missing contributions, plus future years of contributions to get as close to your desired maximum years.
National Insurance is a system of contributions paid by UK workers and employers, as well as self-employed people, to fund various social security benefits, including the pension.
How much does it cost to bolster your UK State Pension?
The cost of buying a year varies depending on whether or not you've been working since 2019 outside the UK.
Most New Zealanders and expat Brits can buy six past years at NZ$400 per year = $2,400 once-off cost.
It is also possible to buy years annually into the future, all the way up to the age of 67 to maximise your pension.
Each year purchased from the UK Government at $400 equates to $700 per year in pension, so for example, 10 years of NI contributions would provide $7,000 per annum in pension payments payable from the UK Government.
'For someone who needed to buy 10 missing years, it would cost them only $4,000 which would pay them $7,000 annually from the age of 67 for the rest of their life,' says Ring. 'Over a typical 20-year retirement (to age 87), this investment strategy would be worth $140,000. Not bad for a $4,000 investment.'
Most people who qualify will get a guaranteed $40 back for every $1 they pay to the UK government over a 20-year retirement.
'Interestingly, the rules are different for people outside the UK, and it is much cheaper to buy voluntary NI contributions outside the country, though the pension is not indexed and is frozen from the date it is first claimed,' says Ring. 'This 'frozen pension' issue impacts 600,000 people around the world and there is a big campaign underway to change it. Regardless, financial experts say it is still a very worthwhile financial decision for people in New Zealand and an excellent return on investment.'
Information required to claim a UK State Pension
Firstly, check your eligibility here: https://check.xtrapension.com/
Your old UK National Insurance Number – see 5 ways to get it here
The name, address, and work dates of your last UK work (even if the company is defunct)
When you left the UK
What you've been doing since 2019 (or later if you left the UK later) including employer details and dates
Ring says the process is very nuanced and it is easy to fall through the cracks.
'Up to 500,000 New Zealanders and expat Brits in New Zealand are eligible to claim this potentially life-changing pension, but it requires some finesse to ensure you get the best possible outcome,' he said.
'That's why we set up XtraPension as we want to help as many people as possible to maximise their UK State Pension so they can enjoy a much more comfortable life in retirement.'
o find out more about how to maximise your UK State Pension, visit XtraPension, WhatsApp +353 83 123 4000 and watch this video: https://youtu.be/x6ZzA-KLe8A?si=Cv6nEbKGxBzCYimO
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
17 hours ago
- NZ Herald
How to access KiwiSaver funds after separation – The Ex-Files
Here's how to handle KiwiSaver in a break-up if you can't afford a payout. Q: I have recently separated from my partner after being in a de facto relationship for six years. I have about $70,000 in my KiwiSaver and my ex-partner has about $30,000 in their KiwiSaver. We both started KiwiSaver after our de facto relationship started. Do I have to give my
Kiwiblog
2 days ago
- Kiwiblog
Guest Post: KiwiSaver, the employment contract and Budget 2025
A guest post by Michael Littlewood: KiwiSaver is about to change again. The Budget announced an increase in the minimum employee contribution (from 3% to 4%) over three years and in the matching minimum contributions paid by employers. The government is also cutting its own contribution from a 50% match to the first $1,042.86 of members' contributions to 25%. So, the maximum taxpayer subsidy drops from $521.43 a year to $260.72. It will also be income-tested so that the highest paid employees (receiving more than $180,000 will lose that. Whether or not these changes are a good idea, I want to address the lessons that employers might take from the latest changes. The first obvious lesson is that, whenever a government gets involved in the saving decisions of employees, change is a constant and that has direct consequences for employers. Since KiwiSaver was first announced in 2006, there have now been five[1] changes of significance. All will have resulted in significant administrative cost to employers. One possible lesson from this is that employers should aim to stay away from their employees' decisions about whether to save for retirement. The second lesson is that governments really shouldn't be telling employers how or how much they should be paying their employees. Aside from some minimum requirements, the employer should be setting the total cost and agreeing with employees how they want to receive that. In theory, the employer should be indifferent to employees' decisions, as long as the total of direct and indirect pay is unaffected. But that leads us into a contentious subject: the tussle between 'pay + benefits' and 'total remuneration'. Some definitions: 'Pay + benefits' says that employers set basic wages/salaries and then separately decide what other non-cash benefits are available (such as subsidised superannuation, medical insurance, death/disablement insurance). The employer leaves it for employees to decide which extra benefits they want. The total compensation each employee receives will depend on value of the benefits chosen by the employee. This can be thought of as the 'traditional' way that employees were paid. 'Total remuneration' says that the employer sets the total it is prepared to spend on a particular role but then lets each employee decide how to receive that total. A 'good' employer might offer help to the employees' making appropriate choices but the employer won't mind whether it's all paid in direct wages/salary or part direct/part indirect. We don't know how many employees are paid on the different bases. Some suggest that 40% of all employees are on 'total remuneration'. I think that should be 100% for reasons I discuss below. But, with respect to the latest KiwiSaver changes, the difference matters: Under pay + benefits , each KiwiSaver member paying the minimum 3% of pay will eventually pay 4%, as will the employer. So the member's total compensation will increase by the employer's 1%. Take-home pay will reduce by the additional member's contribution of 1%. , each KiwiSaver member paying the minimum 3% of pay will eventually pay 4%, as will the employer. So the member's total compensation will increase by the employer's 1%. Take-home pay will reduce by the additional member's contribution of 1%. Under total remuneration, the extra 1% from the employer will come out of the employee's 'total remuneration' so that take-home pay will fall by about a combined 2%. It's a bit more complicated as KiwiSaver's contributions are based on the direct taxable pay so, if 4% of the total remuneration is deducted (the employer's eventual mandatory contribution), before-tax pay is now 96.15% of the starting 100% and both the employer and employee will pay 4% of that (4% of 96.15% + 96.15% = 100%). Also, the employer's contribution is taxed under slightly different rules to direct pay. Regardless, the employer doesn't pay any more in total to get that job done. To some (the Retirement Commissioner included) this looks as though employees have been chiselled out of money they should be getting on top of their regular pay. The Retirement Commissioner wants the practice outlawed – she wants the employer's contribution to be a genuine addition to direct pay, as a 'reward' for making the commitment to KiwiSaver. That is the wrong way of looking at things. Consider two employees, both doing exactly the same kind of work and offering the same value to their employer. In one case (pay + benefits), the employer doesn't know what 'total compensation' is until the employee decides whether to contribute to KiwiSaver. We don't know what proportion of all employees who work for pay + benefits employers, are not contributing to KiwiSaver but, for every such non-contributor, the employer saves, soon-to-be, 4% of their pay. The position is different in a total remuneration environment. There, both parties know what the employee will receive in total. Whether the employee contributes to KiwiSaver doesn't affect the total. The employer pays the same. Given that both employers are paying market rates for that particular role, the total employment costs must be higher for the total remuneration employer. The pay + benefits employer is better off in total by the number of non-contributors. Pay + benefits seems impossible to justify as an HR strategy. How can the employer explain that the total compensation is greater for contributing members over non-contributors, both doing the same job? Employees might have good reasons not to save through KiwiSaver. Here are some possibilities: they can't afford to join; they don't want their savings locked up until age 65; they don't trust such a long-term programme; they have other saving priorities (such as paying off debt) or they may not need to save any more for retirement. Also, some employees are not allowed to join KiwiSaver, or the employer does not have to contribute to KiwiSaver. Those over 65 are one group; also, those who do not have permanent residency but are able to work. It seems unfair that non-permanent residents cannot qualify for the employer KiwiSaver contribution and gives a perverse incentive to employ foreigners. Under pay + benefits, both those groups are penalised. With total remuneration, both can be treated fairly. But, most important of all, whether an employee contributes to KiwiSaver should have no bearing on the total amount the employee receives for the job done. And it's wrong that the government has any kind of role in deciding that total or how it should be paid. Employers who haven't thought about all this before now might be encouraged to do that by the government's 2025 decision to change the KiwiSaver rules again. If they want protection against further regulatory intrusions into their pay policies, shifting to total remuneration should insulate them. Much more importantly, it will treat all employees on a common basis, regardless of their private saving needs. For an employee on total remuneration, the only material advantage of saving through KiwiSaver will now be the government's annual subsidy of just $260.72 ($0 for pay of more than $180,000). For that, the employee must give up access to those savings until age 65. Employees could reasonably decide that any subsidy doesn't compensate for that loss of flexibility. Most KiwiSaver providers offer parallel, accessible saving options at a similar cost so there is no particular advantage, from an investment perspective, in saving through KiwiSaver. The KiwiSaver changes announced in the 2025 Budget might have some unintended long-term consequences. [1] The original model (2006) was a modest member-only, voluntary contribution model with the $1,000 'kickstart' as the only government incentive. That changed (#1) with the introduction of compulsory member and increasing employer contributions in the final version coupled with significant tax breaks (May 2007). The annual fee subsidy and employer tax credit were removed and contributions capped in 2008 (#2) but resumed increases in 2013 (#3). The 'member tax credit' was halved in 2012 and the kickstart was removed in 2015 (#4) Now the 'government contribution' is halved and will be income-tested (#5).
Techday NZ
2 days ago
- Techday NZ
AI to create new roles as Nimbl predicts job growth not loss
New analysis from Nimbl Consulting has suggested that artificial intelligence (AI) is set to reshape the jobs landscape, but predicts that the new era will see job growth rather than redundancy. According to Nimbl Director Wyn Ackroyd, the advent of AI and its integration into core business activities will create opportunities for emerging roles and personalised products on a scale not previously possible. Jobs 'not fewer, but different' In a recent thought piece titled "Customer Service at the Speed of AI", Ackroyd highlights a future where AI enables businesses to deliver highly personalised, real-time services, shifting the emphasis from job losses to new types of employment. "We're not heading toward a future with fewer jobs. We're heading toward a future with different jobs, roles that don't exist yet, but will be essential to delivering the next generation of customer experiences," Ackroyd said. The report draws on industry examples such as the insurance and banking sectors. "Imagine a customer requests a complex mortgage involving KiwiSaver contributions, parental equity, and other non-traditional inputs. In the AI-powered future, financial institutions will be able to instantly generate a bespoke product, tailored to that individual's needs, in real time. Not just for them, but for others with similar profiles, before they even ask," Ackroyd said. This approach signals what Nimbl terms "Service at the Speed of AI", in which unique customer products could be created every hour, each tailored to specific individuals or niche groups. Ackroyd emphasises that rather than eliminating jobs, this will create a vacuum that will be filled by new services and corresponding employment opportunities. Emergence of new roles The analysis suggests that AI-native businesses will increasingly operate with remarkable speed, creating thousands of personalised products as AI tools become more sophisticated. Ackroyd foresees the emergence of new roles such as AI Interaction Designers, Personalisation Strategists, and Synthetic Data Curators. These positions, presently rare or non-existent, are expected to become vital as organisations seek to leverage data for tailored customer solutions. To realise these opportunities, Nimbl encourages investment in data quality, workforce retraining, and strategic redesign. Ackroyd notes that companies must now rethink their approach to workforce planning, prioritising skills that complement AI, like creativity and empathy. Strategic shift for businesses Businesses are also cautioned against viewing AI solely as a means to cut costs. Ackroyd advises that the greater potential lies in deploying AI as a tool to expand capacity and improve customer experience. "The real question isn't how many jobs AI will replace. It's how we'll use the capacity it creates to serve customers in ways we've never been able to before," Ackroyd said. "With some Nimbl footwork," Ackroyd concludes. "the future is full of opportunity." New Zealand-based consultancy, Nimbl, is helping organisations navigate change through a combination of agility, strategic insight, and purpose-driven transformation. Specialising in areas such as AI integration and customer experience design, the business transformation firm supports clients in adapting to an increasingly dynamic and competitive landscape.
