Benefits, KiwiSaver to be means-tested — so why aren't pensions?
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 was 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.
Financial journalist Frances Cook told Breakfast she was 'very concerned' by some of the changes made to KiwiSaver. (Source: Breakfast)
"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 he too thought 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.
"It's incoherent... incentives for Kiwis to save for their future is means-tested, but New Zealand Super — which is universal welfare for older people — is untouched."
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."
rnz.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
20 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Shane Te Pou: We can't spend Government ghost money
There is nothing new here. All the money was already planned for in the Budget. That means no new jobs or economic growth are being delivered that weren't already in the Budget. A Budget after which unemployment rose by 24,000 by June 2025. This isn't a stimulus to the economy because there is no extra investment beyond that already being planned – meaning no extra GDP. It's a Clayton's announcement. Critics urge a genuine, long-term infrastructure strategy, emphasising collaboration and addressing urgent economic and social needs. Photo / Sylvie Whinray Given the fact that 16,000 fewer people are working in construction than this time last year, you would think this would be the ideal time to boost investment. ANZ reported this week that, 'it appears residential builders are giving up on a recovery any time soon'. You would think that now would be an excellent opportunity to build new state housing. Alas, no such announcements were made. As the famous quote goes, ministers are finding that 'winning is easy, governing is hard'. The initial decisions made to cut investment in areas such as ferries, housing and Dunedin Hospital have sapped confidence in the economy. The impact of tax cuts promised at the last election has long since gone. The likelihood of further interest rate cuts is diminishing as inflation creeps towards 3% and above. It's time for a different approach. Our economy, our productivity and our public realm don't benefit when the Government changes long-term infrastructure planning like this. It doesn't help when ministers use infrastructure announcements as a means of political advertising. Chris Bishop claimed he wanted a 'cross-party consensus' on infrastructure, but critics question whether he's truly engaging with a broad range of voices beyond his own. Photo / Sylvie Whinray That's made even harder when the announcements don't mean anything. We need a long-term approach to tackling this problem – one that will work across Parliaments. An approach that doesn't put one form in infrastructure – roads – ahead of everything else. In December last year, Bishop said he genuinely wanted to build a 'cross-party consensus' on how we build infrastructure in New Zealand. That's great in theory, but when your idea of a consensus is everyone agreeing with you, that's not going anywhere. Building a true consensus would involve working with much wider groups. When was the last time Bishop sat down with trade unions to discuss infrastructure? When did he last sit down with child poverty advocates to talk about our housing that puts kids in hospital? New Zealand's economy is struggling. The US President has just slapped 15% tariffs on our exports – and it's our second-biggest export market. We are losing a generation of people who are voting with their feet because they can't see a future here in Aotearoa. Nurses are on strike. Yet our Government is concerned with changing the name on the front of a passport. It's dangerously out of touch with the real needs of New Zealanders. Infrastructure development and renewal can play a key role in restarting the economy. You simply can't re-wrap last year's Christmas presents and present them as new this year. When we invest in New Zealand, we invest in ourselves and we reap the dividends. The Government is pretending to invest right now, dressing up old investments as new. There is a ghost plan for the economy. It's time for a real one.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Govt ‘double-counted' council spending figure
A rationalisation of Waitaki District Council teams and services, such as moving its service desk to the public library, has led to an 8.9% reduction in FTE staff, the largest drop in more than 20 years, chief executive Alex Parmley says. ALLIED MEDIA FILES The Waitaki District Council has largely welcomed a new government ranking system for council performance, but points out some "double counting" in the newly-released key metrics. "Key metrics published today show how much councils are spending and what they are spending it on, which has a direct impact on your rates," Local Government Minister Simon Watts said. "Some ratepayers are getting more and more fed up with rising rates hitting pockets harder than ever. This isn't fair during a cost-of-living crisis where many Kiwis are doing it tough. It is important that ratepayers can see how their council is performing and what it is delivering for their community. "That's why the government is putting clear facts and figures directly into the hands of ratepayers. When ratepayers know more about how their council is performing and where their money is going, they can engage more effectively and ask the tough questions." The government measurements rank Waitaki around the median score, when compared with similar smaller, rural councils on most metrics. However, WDC's annual operating expenditure of $84.78m is $30.25m more than the group median. It also employs more people, 207 fulltime equivalents (FTEs), compared with the median of 87. Personnel costs are also $10.63m higher than the median. WDC's forecast total capital expenditure for 2025 to 2027, $147.78m, is double that of the median. However, WDC chief executive Alex Parmley said that figure is wrong. "In 2025, council deferred around $20million of budgeted work to the following year. That has been double-counted by the government. Our budgeted capital expenditure over the period is around $128m "Waitaki District Council is currently undertaking three separate once-in-a-generation infrastructure projects. The Network Waitaki Events Centre, the Kakanui Bridge replacement and the Forrester Gallery extension. "These projects are all funded externally by the community, the NZTA and the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, with the council's funding a minority of each. "We are also undertaking vital infrastructure upgrades for our waters network, as well as maintaining our roads, parks, reserves and property as a responsible council. "While figures are pegged to the median, Waitaki District has almost double the median population and double the land area of councils it is classed as similar to. "This has an impact on the requirement for capital investment, even without the major infrastructure projects at the Forrester Gallery, in Kakanui and at Centennial Park, Oamaru." Regarding personnel, Mr Parmley said a rationalisation of council teams and services, such as moving its service desk to the public library, has led to an 8.9% reduction in FTE staff, the largest drop in more than 20 years. "Our new approach is helping us to improve customer service access and levels whilst using resources more efficiently." Visit to view the performance tables on the DIA website.
Scoop
10 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.
