KiwiSaver just changed – what should I do with my money now?
Love it or hate it, KiwiSaver just got a shakeup.
The government contribution is being halved, from $521 to $260 a year. And if you're earning a good income, over $180,000? You'll lose it altogether.
I'll be honest from the get-go: I don't love it.
KiwiSaver already doesn't have as many perks as schemes like Australia's Super, with its generous tax benefits, and much higher employer contributions.
Frankly, we're losing enough of our bright sparks to Australia, and don't need to lose any more.
To be fair, the KiwiSaver changes aren't all bad, either. Sixteen and 17-year-olds finally get KiwiSaver benefits, and it's about time.
The government has also bumped up the contribution rate, which will slowly shift over the next two years to be a default 4% from you, and 4% from your employer.
Whether you're team Love It, or team Hate It, let's lay out exactly what's changed and what you need to know to make sure your future nest egg is working smarter, not harder.
The good: a bigger employer boost
Bumping up the minimum contribution to 4% means more going into your savings. That's great, in theory. Especially when it's partly coming from your boss.
Here's the fine print you should watch out for.
Some employers use a 'total remuneration' model, where your KiwiSaver contribution is technically included in your salary package. So that 4% might be coming from money you would've otherwise been paid in cash.
In fact, Treasury's own analysis expects 80% of that extra contribution to be offset by lower pay rises.
A savings boost is still better than nothing, but let's not pretend it's all upside or bonus funds.
Still, if you're lucky enough to have an employer actually contributing extra to your KiwiSaver, that compound growth will help you a lot over time.
The bad: cutting the government top-up
One of KiwiSaver's big perks has always been the government contribution.
It used to be that if you contributed at least $1,042.86 a year, the government would chip in $521. That perk has now been halved, to only $260. Just 25 cents for every dollar you put in (up to $1,042 of your dollars).
Sure, I guess it's better than zero, but it's a downgrade. And that hurts, especially for self-employed people, who don't get employer contributions and often relied on that top-up as their only extra boost.
If that's you, it's still worth putting in $1,042.86 each year. That $260 match is worth it, and still a good slice of cash to have.
It's just a little galling to have it constantly chipped away at.
The risk: political football syndrome
One of the most common things I hear in my inbox right now? 'How can we trust KiwiSaver if the rules keep changing?'
It's a fair question. Retirement planning is long-term. And tinkering by politicians doesn't exactly build confidence, especially when the tinkering always seems to be in the form of cutting back, rather than building up.
But let's zoom out. KiwiSaver is still one of the best tools available for building long-term wealth.
Your money is legally yours. It's not held by the government, but by investment providers. The government can tweak the incentives, but they can't take your money.
That said, yes, changes might keep coming. So the key is to take charge of what you can control.
One of the biggest mistakes people make with their KiwiSaver is having it in the wrong fund.
Conservative when it should be growth, or growth when it should be conservative.
It's a setting that takes 10 minutes to change, and could mean a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars by the time you retire. Far more than any government contribution would add up to.
Not sure which one you should be using?
Try the Sorted Fund Finder. It's free, independent and really easy to use.
What next?
This Budget made one thing painfully clear: no one's handing out freebies.
If you want a good retirement, you'll need to build it yourself. That means reviewing your KiwiSaver, boosting your savings rate where you can, and making sure you're in the right fund.
You don't need to do everything at once, but ignoring it altogether will cost you.
Pick one thing. Change it. Then keep going.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Labour Leader Chris Hipkins Dismisses Criticism Of Covid-19 Overspending As 'Treasury Spin'
, Acting Political Editor Labour leader Chris Hipkins is dismissing what he calls "Treasury spin" after its analysts said the last government overspent during the Covid-19 pandemic against official advice. Treasury's 2025 Long Term Insights Briefing, released this week, calculated the total cost of the pandemic at about $66 billion, or roughly 20.4 percent of GDP. The report said Treasury advocated for more targeted support in late 2020 into 2021 and explicitly warned "against any further stimulus" by Budget 2022. But responding to questions from RNZ on Friday, Hipkins was unapologetic about his party's economic response to Covid-19. "We prioritised keeping people alive and keeping people in jobs," he said. "I'm never going to claim that we got everything perfect... but prioritising jobs and prioritising lives was the right thing to do." Hipkins claimed other countries also spent up large with the same objectives, but Treasury said New Zealand was near the top of the chart when considering spending as a percentage of GDP. "If you listen to the Treasury spin, then you're going to get one view," Hipkins told RNZ. "If you speak to other economists, you'll get a different view. "Our job was to support New Zealanders through the global pandemic, making sure that we saved lives and kept people's jobs, and we were very successful in doing that: one of the lowest death rates in the world, one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world, and one of the fastest rates of economic growth in the world." About half of the total Covid-19 response cost was directly tied to the pandemic, such as the wage subsidy scheme, or health initiatives like vaccination, contact tracing and quarantine. The remainder went to a wide range of initiatives like: "tax changes, training schemes, housing construction, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, increases to welfare benefits, the Small Business Cashflow Scheme, Jobs for Nature, additional public housing places and school lunches". Treasury said that had "a lagged impact on the economy and proved difficult to unwind in later years". But Hipkins said Treasury had mischaracterised some of that spending, such as the provision of distance-learning for school students. "Making sure that kids could keep learning while they were at home during lockdown was an essential Covid-19 expense," Hipkins said. The report comes during a prolonged economic downturn, with both the government and opposition parties trading blame over its cause. Finance Minister Nicola Willis was quick on Thursday to wield Treasury's findings as evidence that Labour had been undisciplined in its spending, driving up inflation, and fuelling a cost-of-living crisis. "Treasury's language is spare and polite, but its conclusions are damning," she said. "New Zealanders are still paying the price of the previous government extending a big-spending approach initially intended for a pandemic response. "The lesson from Labour's mishandling of the Covid response is that while there are times when governments have to increase spending in response to major events the fiscal guardrails should be restored as soon as possible." To that, Hipkins scoffed: "By comparison to this government's track record, I'll take our one any day". Hipkins said Willis should stop blaming others and instead accept the consequences of her government's spending cuts. "The wreckage that she is leaving in her wake at the moment is obvious for all New Zealanders to see. Unemployment is going up," he said. "Economic growth has collapsed. Essential services that the public rely on a daily basis are falling into disarray, and this is all on Nicola Willis' watch."
Scoop
a day 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
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
The pros and cons of owning rental property in retirement
While term deposits gradually deplete, property preserves capital. Selling may seem practical, but once the money is spent, it's gone. Retaining the property provides a steady income stream while keeping your financial base intact, a crucial advantage for those concerned about longevity or wanting to leave an inheritance. Property also offers flexibility. Retirees can sell when the market is favourable, downsize, or tap into equity if needed. In contrast, fixed-term investments lock up funds and offer little adaptability. Importantly, owning property gives retirees control. It's a tangible, familiar asset not subject to the same volatility or institutional risks as many financial products. In summary, residential property delivers inflation protection, income growth, security and legacy value, all vital advantages that cash-based investments can't reliably provide. A: You're referring to last week's Q&A, in which I said rental property isn't a great investment during retirement, 'unless you are wealthy and enjoy being a landlord, or regard the property as your children's inheritance'. That's because you tie up money in the property you could otherwise spend gradually through retirement. While last week's correspondent said income from their rental was less than they would receive from a term deposit, I didn't mean to imply that proceeds from selling a rental should go into term deposits – as you seem to think. I've said in this column, many times, that it's wise to put retirement savings you expect to spend in the next three years in bank deposits or a cash fund. But invest three-to-10-year money in a bond fund or medium-risk fund, and longer-term money in a higher-risk share fund – in or out of KiwiSaver. I agree that term deposits may not beat inflation, but over the years a share fund will, in much the same way as property. And while shares certainly have their ups and downs, property values have also wobbled. Infometrics data shows that since the year ending March 2005, New Zealand's average house value has risen sharply - 11% to 14% - in five years, and rose a dramatic 24% in 2020-21. But there have also been four years when values fell. Two were in the Global Financial Crisis, in 2009 and 2011, and two were in 2022-23 (-12%) and 2024-25 (-2%). See our graph. True, shares tend to wobble even more. But that's why I recommend putting only longer-term money in share funds, so there's always time to recover before you spend it. On your comment that 'rental income typically increases over the years, especially as housing demand will in time continue to rise', I'm not so sure. A recent article on the Auckland Property Investors Association website says, 'In April 2025, annual rental inflation fell by 0.7% nationwide, with Auckland (-2.4%) and Wellington (-3.1%) leading the drop… The gear is shifting and investors need to pay attention.' It quotes the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on three factors causing this: 'a surge in completed builds', slower net migration and a high number of rental listings. Other reasons selling a rental before retirement and investing in bank deposits, a medium-risk fund and a share fund – as outlined above - is a good idea: Flexibility. If you suddenly need a large sum for major home repairs, a car, or a hip replacement without a long wait, the cash is there. Being forced to sell a rental fast – dislodging tenants and perhaps accepting a low price – doesn't work well. Diversification. Owning your own home and a rental property doesn't spread your risk well. But if you sell the rental, you can easily spread your money over bonds, international shares and so on. If you love property, put some long-term money in a property fund. You can even dabble in gold or cryptocurrencies – although I wouldn't recommend doing that with more than 5% of your savings. Hassle. Rental property can come with unexpected maintenance issues, tenants who can't or won't pay, and changing regulations. KiwiSaver and similar investments just sit there. Enjoyment! With the money that was sitting in real estate you can travel widely, buy the good seats to shows, eat out often, spoil the grandkids, drive a car you love… And if you're concerned about inheritances, you can still leave plenty – perhaps half or a third of the proceeds from selling the rental. I expect, though, that I won't convince you. It's hard to argue with the first half of your statement: 'Importantly, owning property gives retirees control. It's a tangible, familiar asset not subject to the same volatility or institutional risks as many financial products.' But, as I've noted, property prices and rents are indeed volatile. And how about increasing landlord regulation and possibly tougher capital gains taxes as institutional risks? Rental property often works well, but it's not risk-free. Still, there's a psychological element. Some people just seem to prefer to own 'bricks and mortar'. Perhaps they enjoy DIY maintenance, or like the idea of providing good long-term housing for a family. If that's you, go for it. I hope it works well. What about commercial property? Q: I have read your column for many years and do not recall you ever mentioning commercial property as an investment. A real estate agent once told me that residential property is for people who do not understand commercial property. The tenant pays the rates, insurance, body corp fees etc. I know there are [arguments] for and against, but commercial property investment has done well for me. A: You're right – I don't write much about investing in shops, factories, offices and the like. I don't know a lot about it, and it seems to be an area in which those who know can hoodwink the babes in the wood! I've heard of people doing really well in commercial property – like you. But I've also heard of a few whose property value plunged. And I'm sure there are others who don't talk about it. One way to reduce the risk is to invest in a commercial property fund that holds several properties. You get diversification and hopefully expert management. But, as discussed recently in this column, there can be problems getting your money out when you want it. And, just like residential rental property, I reckon tying your money up in commercial property in retirement is not a great idea – for much the same reasons. Managing care payments Q: We have a managed investment of $1 million. My husband, who has Alzheimer's, will soon go into residential care costing approximately $100,000 a year. Should I separate out the $100,000 at the time of entry to care? We have rental properties as well, so I am not anticipating running out of money. These don't provide a lot of income. I don't know how to manage our money in this regard. A: And I'm sure you have a lot else running through your mind at this difficult time. Some readers will criticise me for including your letter, given that you are much better off than most people. But you still need a financial plan. And, as always, I hope other readers will find this Q&A helpful. I suggest setting up your money as described in the first Q&A, with three years of care costs and other spending money in bank deposits or a cash fund, and so on. Then, every year or so, move another $100,000 plus spending money from higher risk to medium risk, and from medium to low risk. Your current managed investment will probably be medium or high risk. Ask the provider. You could use that fund as part of your plan. You might also consider selling your rental properties after reading the above Q&A! If all of this feels too complicated, find a good financial adviser. I recommend advisers whose only reward is payment from you, in the form of fees. Other advisers, who are paid salaries or receive commissions for placing your money in certain investments, might be free or cheap. But they may not act in your best interests. I used to run a list on my website of advisers who charge fees. A while back I passed the list on to MoneyHub, which now runs it. You can see the list at Please note that I don't know any more about these advisers than how they charge for their services. But there are tips there on selecting someone. Info for retirees Q: We are recent retirees, and have noticed that there has been a lot in the media of late regarding living with superannuation only, or what is available to top that up. We are in our 70s, have no children, a mortgage-free home and are debt-free. Unfortunately we do not have a great amount in savings. We are looking at any financial plans that are available to supplement the superannuation. We do not like at all the concept of reverse mortgages – even though they have a Government guarantee. Can you recommend any other plans that may supplement our super payments? A: Firstly, there is no government guarantee on reverse mortgages. Still, the main providers – Heartland Bank and SBS Bank – are regulated by the Reserve Bank. And given they are lending you money, as opposed to your investing money with them, I don't see how there's any risk. The only worry, really, is that you borrow a large amount early in retirement and, through compounding interest, the debt gets uncomfortably big. But the value of your house will almost certainly rise too, over the years. And the reverse mortgage lenders are pretty careful not to lend an amount that is likely to lead to later problems. A reverse mortgage can work really well for people in your situation. But if I can't persuade you to look further into it, there may be government help for you beyond New Zealand Super. This page on the Work and Income website lists what is available: It includes info on the SuperGold card, the accommodation supplement – which can include help with homeowner costs, the disability allowance, temporary additional support, the Community Services Card and payments for residential care. I also recommend you go to and sign up for the Seniors Newsletter, emailed monthly, which has all sorts of info that might help you. When debt doubles Q: Last week you said it's not uncommon for someone to repay more than twice the original mortgage over the years, because of compounding interest. Contrast that to credit card debt, Mary. Perhaps you need to roll out the Rule of 72 again, this time concentrating on the doubling time for credit card debt. A: Good idea! The Rule of 72 is really handy for giving us a pretty accurate idea of compounding interest. Some examples: If an investment has doubled in, say, nine years, divide nine into 72. The investment return is about 8% a year. If you know the return on an investment is, say, 6%, divide six into 72. It will take about 12 years for your investment to double. As you point out, this can also be applied to a debt: If the debt has doubled in nine years, the interest charged is 8%. If you're being charged 6%, and you make no repayments, your debt will double in 12 years. It's important to note the 'you make no repayments' bit. With a mortgage, you make regular repayments, which reduce the interest compounding. (The exception is reverse mortgages). And hopefully, with credit card or other debt, you are also making repayments. With no repayments, a debt can grow alarmingly, given that credit card interest rates are often around 20%. If we divide 20 into 72, we find that a 20% debt with no repayments will double in about three and a half years. And then double again, and so on. It's not pretty. * Mary Holm, ONZM, is a freelance journalist, a seminar presenter and a bestselling author on personal finance. She is a director of Financial Services Complaints Ltd (FSCL) and a former director of the Financial Markets Authority. Her opinions do not reflect the position of any organisation in which she holds office. Mary's advice is of a general nature, and she is not responsible for any loss that any reader may suffer from following it. Send questions to mary@ Letters should not exceed 200 words. We won't publish your name. Please provide a (preferably daytime) phone number. Unfortunately, Mary cannot answer all questions, correspond directly with readers, or give financial advice.
