Budget 2025: High earners can't get KiwiSaver credit - but they can get the pension
National Finance Minister Nicola Willis.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
A government decision to means-and-income-test support available to children and younger people, but not alter the eligibility for NZ Super, has prompted questions from some commentators.
As part of Budget 2025, the government announced it would
income-test eligibility for the Best Start payment
in the first year of a child's life.
This will affect about 60,000 families who previously would have been able to access the money, before being income tested in the child's second and third year.
Teenagers who are receiving JobSeeker benefits will be assessed against a "
parental assistance test
" which will determine whether their parents could provide them financial support.
The member
tax credit in KiwiSaver
will be halved and not available to anyone earning over $180,000.
But anyone earning at that level is still entitled to the full NZ Super payment.
"As one of my team members commented - this Budget was all about taking away from young people and giving to the older generation [through] extra cancer treatment, rates relief for Gold Card members and continuation of NZ Super," said Rupert Carlyon, founder of Koura KiwiSaver.
"For young people, we are now means testing KiwiSaver contributions, Best Start payments and not providing welfare to those under the age of 20."
He said younger people would also be affected by a lower level of investment in infrastructure.
"The budget is described as a budget forcing people to pay their own way where they can. Though NZ Super remains untouched, despite hundreds of thousands of Kiwis receiving it that do not need it."
He said NZ Super should be means tested in the same way but it was not politically feasible for the government to do so.
"Young people need to be better at voting to drive through change that benefits them."
Shamubeel Eaqub, chief economist at Simplicity,
said it was interesting
that the KiwiSaver incentive would not be available to people earning more than $180,000 but no such test applied to the pension, which costs nearly $25 billion a year.
Asked on Nine to Noon her thoughts on means-testing superannuation, Nicola Willis said it was not the government's policy.
"We remain committed to universal New Zealand superannuation."
She said National had not yet had a caucus discussion on changes to superannuation.
"But I'm on the record at the last election campaign that we campaigned for the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation to be lifted. That was to make New Zealand superannuation more affordable, and more sustainable, and to reflect the fact that New Zealanders are working for much, much longer. We campaigned on that because I believe it was the right thing to do…
Labour weaponised that
against us."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
26 minutes ago
- RNZ News
KiwiSaver providers hope public support for contribution increases will see default rates move higher
Financial Services Council chief executive Kirk Hope. Photo: RNZ/ Dan Cook KiwiSaver providers are hoping public support for increased contribution rates could provide the incentive to push them still higher. The latest RNZ-Reid Research poll included questions about the changes to the KiwiSaver scheme announced in the Budget. From 1 April next year, the default contribution rate for employers and employees will rise to 3.5 percent. The following April, it will be 4 percent. But the government will halve the credit it offers to people who contribute at least $1042 a year to their KiwiSaver, to a maximum $260.72. It will not be available to people earning more than $180,000. The poll showed a total of 61.2 percent of respondents supported the contribution change, 21.4 percent opposed it and 17.4 percent were not sure. Among National voters, almost 80 percent supported the change. But only 23.7 percent of total voters supported the move to halve the contribution rate, and fewer than half of National supporters. Fisher Funds chief investment officer Ashley Gardyne said he was not surprised by the findings. He said we should not stop at 4 percent plus 4 percent, and should push towards higher contribution rates. "I think it's really positive we've seen the contribution rates increase, and ultimately if we want people to get to the right amount of savings in retirement those rates do need to move up through time." He said the Australian model, where contribution rates slowly lifted over a number of years, could be one to follow. "They took a really long-term, 10-year approach of increasing contributions by a little bit every year. The reality is it's tough to find extra money in your pay cheque to put into KiwiSaver but it is really important long-term as well to make sure you end up in the right position for retirement. "Having a long-term vision like that is really important." Read more: Australia soon to be second in world for retirement savings as superannuation pool soars Kirk Hope, chief executive of the Financial Services Council, which represents KiwiSaver providers, agreed the results were expected. "We've known for some time that in terms of contributions those will be relatively well received. Obviously it's a bit tougher if the government contribution is being halved or in some cases removed that's not going to be particularly popular, the key thing is the government continues to contribute something." He said there should be a bipartisan agreement about a long-term strategy for retirement income. He said it was also worth discussing other steps the government could take, such as adjusting the tax settings. "Other changes the government might be able to make to the tax system in the future to continue to incentivise particularly savings and even up the playing field between savings and investment and housing. That's some fundamental shifts in the tax system." Ana-Marie Lockyer, chief executive at Pie Funds, said it was good to see that most people supported the contribution increase. "In terms of the halving of the government contributions we need to acknowledge the government faced some hard choices as a result of the tight fiscal environment. But I believe we should be offering more incentives for Kiwis to save for their retirement, not fewer. "Reducing the government contribution is more likely to impact the retirement balances of lower income earners - a group who deserve the same opportunities as everyone else." She said even a reduced contribution of $261 a year could grow to more than $40,000 over a person's working life. "I think what's more important than the dollar amount of the government contribution is the number of Kiwis who don't receive it, either because they're not eligible or they're not contributing enough. "While it's a good thing that the government contributions are now available for 16- and 17-year-olds, I think the government missed a trick by not extending it to the increasing number of over-65s who are still working, whether by choice or necessity. "What's probably more concerning is the thousands of KiwiSavers missing out on the MTC government contribution each year because they're not contributing enough to qualify, leaving millions of dollars on the table. "So the poll is actually a timely reminder for people to ensure they've contributed at least $1043 by 30 June in order to receive the full government contribution of $521 - before it reduces to $261 next year." Finance Minister Nicola Willis says the changes will help Kiwis save more. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii A spokesperson for Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the changes to KiwiSaver were designed to help Kiwis to save more and make the scheme more fiscally sustainable. "For example, an 18-year-old earning the minimum wage of just under $49,000 a year who invests in a balanced fund can expect to have almost $910,000 in KiwiSaver at age 65. Under the old settings it would have been about $732,000. "The results are similar for most other people. The Retirement Commissioner estimates the changes will increase retirement savings for about 80 percent of KiwiSaver members." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Newsroom
34 minutes ago
- Newsroom
The young need state support just as much as the old
In a recent column in the NZ Herald, Mathew Hooton said that if superannuation can't be cut, then wage subsidies should be. As 'welfare costs are exploding' and there is no political will to carve 20 percent off the universal pension, he continued, we must stop providing families with child-related tax credits and accommodation assistance, which he describes as 'wage subsidies'. While this view may resonate with some, all developed countries have variants on state policies like Working for Families to support children, and a version of New Zealand Superannuation to support the old. Typically and confusingly it is often argued that Working for Families is either 'corporate welfare' (letting businesses get away with not paying workers enough for their families to live on), or 'communism by stealth' that puts 'the whole population on welfare'. By similar logic it could be argued that NZ Super puts everyone on welfare at 65 or is a form of corporate welfare because wages should be high enough so people can save for a pension for themselves. Mid-last century, in a world long gone, wages were set by arbitration to ensure that one full-time male breadwinner earned enough to support a 'typical' family with a wife at home, and several children. Even so, tax breaks and a family benefit for children were also necessary. In the 21st century we have very different family structures including two-earner families. It is ludicrous to expect employers to meet the needs of both low-income adults and their children. For example, a very low-wage worker with four children currently receives an extra $610 per week from Working for Families. If cut completely, the net wage would have to rise by around $32,000 a year to make up for it, by Hooton's logic. The increase in the gross wage rate would cripple employers, be too much for workers without children, and not enough for larger families. There is the argument that by wiping Working for Families, the money saved be given back in tax relief to workers. That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. If families were to be compensated, it would require a complex package of abating tax credits. Oh, but isn't that that what Working for Families currently is? It all becomes so circular. One million superannuitants are collectively paid $20b after tax each year. Around one million children are given just $3.3b in Working for Families each year. You read that right. Each year around one million superannuitants are paid around six times more than one million children through Working for Families. But it is true that Working for Families is badly designed and does not meet the main goal of child poverty prevention. It doesn't reward paid work, as it is intended to. It is in desperate need of reform. It's often said that Working for Families is all Labour's fault, but it did not magically come into being fully formed under the Helen Clark Government in 2004. The universal weekly family benefit and tax breaks for families in the 1950s evolved by the 70s and 80s to become a complex mix of family benefit and different family tax credits. In 1991 the National Party folded the universal family benefit into the targeted tax credits to become one weekly targeted payment per child called Family Support. There were further changes under National in the mid-1990s, and rewarding paid work became elevated as a fundamental principle. All that the Clark government did in 2004 was to change the name to Working for Families, then build on and expand the existing complex structure, with even more emphasis on paid work as a criterion. Then, the Ardern government introduced an additional significant payment, called Best Start, for children under three years old, universal for the first year. As a policy, Working for Families is a mess. In contrast NZ Super is a simple, unconditional universal payment indexed to wages. It is easy to access and, until the housing crisis, has been enough to prevent poverty in old age. It is a basic income floor that does not disincentivise paid work. It has a very gentle income test though the tax system, so that the very highest income earners still get around three quarters of a pension paid when there is no additional income. The extra assistance for families to meet the basic income needs of their children is a very different story. Working for Families is tightly targeted and assists only children of low- and middle-income parents. Moreover, the full payment is conditional on parents having paid work and receiving no core benefit or part benefit. These conditions result in 200,000 children in the worst-off families being excluded from around $5000 per year, or more for larger families. With this division between deserving and undeserving children it's no wonder child poverty is so intractable. Working for Families payments are not annually indexed and are increased only when cumulative inflation exceeds 5 percent. There is no wage link as for NZ Super. Furthermore, payments are subject to a draconian clawback equivalent to an extra tax of 27 percent from a very low base of joint parental income. That threshold will be lifted marginally next year to $44,900, but to pay for it, the rate of abatement rises from 27 percent to 27.5 percent and Best Start becomes income-tested. This very 'tight targeting' ensures child poverty persists for many families in paid work. The overlap of tax, Working for Families clawbacks, student loan repayments and loss of accommodation assistance, and now Best Start clawbacks, confirms for too many, that extra work effort does not lift them out of poverty. Children are invisible: that is the problem. Fundamentally we need to understand that low-income wages, benefits, and paid parental leave are for the income needs of adults, but children also have income needs. I would argue that rather than take more from children we take more from the top end of NZ Super through the tax system and direct the revenue for fixing not just Working for Families but also the other failing welfare measures such as the accommodation supplement, benefits and disability support. We do want to grow the economy but should not be done at the expense of the wellbeing of both our current and future workforce.
RNZ News
42 minutes ago
- RNZ News
New Plymouth council to undertake safety audit of new cycleway
Devon Intermediate School principal Jenny Gellen says the cycleway is an accident waiting to happen. Photo: RNZ/ Robin Martin A safety audit has been ordered for a controversial cycleway that has divided opinions in New Plymouth, with a view to identify improvements that can be made to the design. Contractors began installing 4 kilometres of concrete separators for the dedicated cycleway earlier this year and most have been in place since April. The $3.8 million NZTA Transport Choices project along Devon Street West and South Road was developed in conjunction with the New Plymouth District council and fully funded through the Transport Agency. New Plymouth mayor Neil Holdom said the cycleway was always going to be controversial, with submissions on the project being split 50/50 for and against. "Once construction has been completed our team will undertake a safety review to assess the new layout, feedback from road users and the views of residents living along the route. "I have asked our team to report back following that process to provide council with any options available to improve the design." Since the beginning of the installation of the concrete separators, which have been nicknamed Tim Tams due to their resemblance to the popular biscuits, there has been a flood of complaints. Residents and businesses have griped about lost car parks, motorists have hit the raised separators damaging tyres and wheel rims, and others have said they couldn't pull over to allow emergency services through because of them. NZTA director of regional relationships Linda Stewart said it was important to note the new cycleway was not yet complete. "We are not aware of any significant safety concerns with the cycleway construction at this stage. "Once it is complete any new roadway layout then has a 'transition' period where it is monitored, and adjustments or fine-tuning is carried out. Equally, road users also take a period of adjustment to new road layouts including cycleways, signalised intersections etc." Stewart said NZTA had worked closely with NPDC on the design and construction phase of the project and would continue to do so in the post-construction phase." North Taranaki Cycling Advocates member Elric Aublant says the concrete separators remind vehicles to stay in their lane. Photo: RNZ/ Robin Martin Devon Intermediate School principal Jenny Gellen, whose school was meant to benefit from the cycleway, said the concrete separators were too many in number and too large. "You'd actually have to be driving a quite high-set car, anything that's lower to the ground you're going to take out the bottom of your motor and I don't know what's going to happen to your tyres." The principal had even more serious concerns about the layout of a new pedestrian crossing at Belt Road, a short distance from Devon Intermediate, which was mainly used by West End primary school pupils. It now featured two car parks on the road side of the cycleway separator. "So, students can be standing on the pedestrian crossing with cars parked out in front of it and the students can't been seen by the cars coming down the road ... and the students have to be well out on the pedestrian crossing before they can see the cars. "I have a serious concern that that's actually an accident waiting to happen and it won't be a pretty one." Principal Jenny Gellen says she has serious concerns about road safety. Photo: RNZ/ Robin Martin North Taranaki Cycling Advocates Group member Elric Aublant rode his bike every day along South Road on his commute to town until recently moving house. He said the previous, painted-on cycling lane wasn't adequate. "Even when there was quite a decent shoulder space, there were a lot of cars running inside the bike lane, so really not giving cyclists enough space." Aublant had been back to try the new dedicated lane and liked what he saw. "And, so yes, the concrete blocks some people think it is quite an issue because people are hitting them, but I personally think it's a good separation and it's actually forcing drivers to stick to their lane and share the road with other users. "And, yeah, it's a much more safe, more pleasant commute on that road now." He hoped that as people became more familiar with the cycle lanes more would get back on their bikes and try them out. Emergency services providers had a mixed views on the cycleway separators. FENZ Taranaki district manager David Utumapu said it made its concerns known during the submissions process. "We advised the council that we were concerned that traffic might not be able to clear the lane when an emergency vehicle is behind them. "It seems to us that people are not always sure what to do when we're behind them, and few seem willing to drive over the lane separators, leaving a narrow gap on the centreline for our trucks to use." Police did not raise concerns about the cycle lane separators and Hato Hone St John area operations manager Blair Walton said it took part in the 2023 public consultation on their installation and "had no concerns at the time". "As it's early days we're monitoring the situation and how the new layout is working in practice." NZTA's Linda Stewart said concrete cycleway separators had been used safely internationally and in New Zealand. Guidance on the safe use and design of separators was on its website. "To achieve the space for the cycleway, essentially one side of parking was removed. The separators effectively act as a parked car in most respects. Drivers can continue until there is a gap in the separators where it's safe to pull over and stop." Council's major projects and planning manager Andrew Barron said the cycle lane separators were designed to best-practice standards. "Similar cycleways have been installed in other cities across the country. "We understood that there would be a settling-in period as drivers get used to the changed road layout. The separators themselves are not causing the accidents. "We appreciate that previously, drivers could use the cycle lane to manoeuvre into and this ability has been removed to increase the safety of cyclists." Barron said the approved designs allowed most cars, as well as emergency vehicles, the ability to negotiate them as the road width had in most instances stayed the same. "The separators are low enough for most cars to straddle without them hitting the bottom of the car." Construction of the cycleway was due to be complete later this month. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
