logo
Who's worse off under new KiwiSaver changes?

Who's worse off under new KiwiSaver changes?

1News24-05-2025
An increase in contribution rates for KiwiSaver should make most savers better off - but it won't benefit everyone.
As part of the Budget, the Government announced it was increasing the default KiwiSaver contribution rate to 4% from employees and 4% from employers.
Over a saver's lifetime, including a first home withdrawal, it estimated this could make a high earner 28% better off at retirement and a low income or part-time worker 21% better off.
But some people won't be better off at all.
Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson said about 20% of KiwiSaver members would be worse off due to the Budget changes.
The changes also included a reduction in the member tax credit to $260.72 (from $521.43 previously) when someone contributed at least $1042, and the removal of the credit entirely for people earning over $180,000.
People who are paid on a "total remuneration" basis will not benefit when contribution rates increase.
"Total remuneration" refers to the practice of employers offering a salary package, from which an employee can choose to make KiwiSaver contributions, rather than setting aside a separate contribution on top of an employee's salary.
Some KiwiSaver providers, such as Kōura founder Rupert Carlyon, have expressed concern that more employers might shift to the total remuneration model, to avoid the higher rates.
Wrightson said it would be important that did not happen. She has been calling for it to be banned for some time.
Earlier Retirement Commission research showed just under half of employers used total remuneration for some employees.
"It goes completely against the sprit of KiwiSaver whereby retirement savings are meant to be contributed by the employer, the employee and the Government contribution," Wrightson said.
"That's the model. People will get no benefit from the changes on a total remuneration contract. This system needs to be changed so that total remuneration is abolished.
"It's the old story - money in your hand versus money salted away. It becomes very tempting, so total remuneration was not permitted in the original KiwiSaver settings, it was changed a few years ago and I think it should change back."
Wrightson said lower-income workers were more affected by the drop in the member tax credit because it was responsible for a greater portion of their retirement savings.
She said, for people earning less than $30,000 a year, the member tax credit was expected to add up to 15% or 20% of their total balance at 65.
With the reduction, it would be 6% to 11%.
Wrightson said there was a divide forming between people who could afford to make KiwiSaver contributions at all and those who could not.
Self-employed people do not have access to an employer contribution in many cases and many providers say it is common for them to opt to contribute only the $1042 required to get the member tax credit.
In 2024, about 200,000 only received the government contribution, including 125,000 self-employed people, Wrightson said.
She said the commission would conduct some more investigation into the impact of the changes on self-employed people and gig workers.
"We're doing some work with Hnry to look at some of their data… We need to find out who's doing what, who's not doing what, where the gaps are and what the response by Government could be."
rnz.co.nz
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Morning Report Essentials for Wednesday 20 August 2025
Morning Report Essentials for Wednesday 20 August 2025

RNZ News

time7 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Morning Report Essentials for Wednesday 20 August 2025

sport education 6 minutes ago In today's episode, we have our weekly political panel with National and Labour; The government says a new push to boost competition in the power sector will give smaller retailers a fairer shot; Secondary school teachers right across the country are walking off the job on Wednesday after a one percent pay rise offer from the government; Beige is the new black as cricket fans prepare to celebrate 20 years of T20 cricket.

When The Privatising Rubber Hits The Climate Change Denial Roads
When The Privatising Rubber Hits The Climate Change Denial Roads

Scoop

time11 hours ago

  • Scoop

When The Privatising Rubber Hits The Climate Change Denial Roads

First a disclosure. I'm the co-owner of a plug-in hybrid car. It cost in the vicinity of $20,000 more than if it had been completely petrol fuelled. A key factor in the purchase decision was to make a small contribution to reducing carbon emissions. Then along came the National-ACT-NZ First coalition government's decision to introduce road user charges (RUCs) for fully electric and hybrid vehicles. It felt like a kick in the teeth to those trying to do their bit for reducing climate change driven carbon emissions. Not just because of this decision, it has become obvious that this is a government that resides within a spectrum between climate change indifference and climate denial. Roads is one of the big areas where this indifference is being played out in real time. But now, following the Government's announcement by Minister of Transport Chris Bishop to replace the petrol tax with road user changes for all vehicles, privatisation is being used to strengthen the Government's 'journey of travel'. On 6 August two helpful explanatory articles spelt out the details of the announcement. One was by James Ensor in the NZ Herald (6 August): Road user changes for all. The other was Bridie Witton in The Post (6 August): Petrol tax replaced by RUCs. In his announcement Minister Bishop called it 'the biggest change to how we fund our roading network in 50 years'. He argued that the 'surge' in fuel-efficient, hybrid and full electric vehicles had eroded the longstanding connection between petrol consumption and kilometres driven. He received 'cheer leader' support from Stuff Political Editor, and a former leading player in the rightwing NZ Initiative thinktank, Luke Malpass in his paywalled article arguing that the decision would bring the country into the 21st century; The Post (7 August): Cheerleader support. There was also strong support from the NZ Initiative's chief economist Eric Crampton who drills down further in a considered Newsroom column (12 August): Better transport funding. Although I disagree with his approach to the issue, I readily acknowledge that it is thoughtful and considered. The announcement Chris Bishop expects the legislation to pass in 2026, with the system becoming operational by 2027. In summary the announced decision involves Scrapping fuel excise duty and move all vehicles to a RUCs system. Charges would be based on distance travelled, vehicle type, time and location. In the name of 'modernisation' the current RUCs paper 'labels on windscreen' system would be replaced by a fully digital e-RUC system. The New Zealand Transport Authority's (Waka Kotahi) dual role as both regulator and RUC retailer will be split with NZTA losing the latter role. Private firms taking over the collection and administration of RUCs charges (the above former role). Distinguishing facts from political fiction Following the initial coverage of the Transport Minister's announcement, Bridie Witton wrote a second cautionary piece casting doubt on the claimed benefits. Published on 8 August in The Post she suggested that most vehicle owners might not benefit: Most vehicle owners unlikely to come out ahead. Witton's piece included Professor Simon Kingham, former chief science adviser to the Ministry of Transport, observing said the new system would to be more expensive to operate. Consequently, the increased costs had to come from somewhere. Kingham, as reported by Witton, explained that: This was because every car would need a transponder or some kind of digital device to track road use and report the data back, potentially to an app, for the easy digital payment Bishop envisioned. He noted the Government's roading ambitions cost more than it was raising in revenue, adding that it wasn't certain whether the Government planned to pass the new costs on to consumers or offset it through taxes. Bishop has confirmed it will bring in more revenue, which suggests people will pay more. Kingham also warned that a distance- and weight-based system could disincentivise people from moving to fuel-efficient vehicles. 'It will be relatively more expensive in fuel-efficient cars, and relatively more cheaper in gas-guzzling cars. If it's entirely based on distance, then everybody pays the same.' He said there was potential for more sophisticated pricing, such as charging more around schools or at peak times, but that could mean every driver has a tracking device in their car, which he said was 'moving into 'Big Brother' territory'. Dropping the fuel tax also made it less attractive for people to transition to electric vehicles, he added. Ideologically driven privatisation Just as Christopher Luxon's government has become increasingly known for its indifference to (and among some, especially NZ First, denial of) climate change, it also has become increasingly known for its ideological preference for privatising functions of public utilities. I have discussed the latter in the context of outsourcing planned surgery which would normally be undertaken by public hospitals. See my Newsroom columns (12 March and 16 June respectively): Increased risk and Follow the money. Also see my health systems blog Otaihanga Second Opinion (14 July): Who benefits. Under the PR guise of 'modernisation' private firms are to take over from NZTA the collection and administration of road user charges. This is based on the simplistic ideological assertion that this will drive innovation and reduce compliance costs by allowing the market to offer high-tech solutions, such as integrations with in-car computers. In Chris Bishop's words: Instead of expanding a clunky government system, we will reform the rules to allow the market to deliver innovative, user-friendly services for drivers. Embellished nonsense! As a reluctant user of NZTA's current system of managing RUCs payments I find it straightforward and efficient. Eric Crampton expresses a similar view in his above-mentioned article. No reason is given as to why NZTA itself could not be allowed to implement the proposed new system efficiently and effectively as private firms might be able to. There is every reason to believe that it could. There is a strong addiction within the government to privatising public utilities. Arguably the most addicted is ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour. This addiction extends to privatising tax collection of RUCs. The biggest beneficiaries will be the private corporates who take their cut to gather the tax. Why should this not surprise anyone! Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store