Latest news with #Wrightson
Newsroom
2 days ago
- Business
- Newsroom
NZ's means-testing creep
Whatever age we're at, means testing for benefits is creeping into our lives. From the Best Start allowance for parents of newborns, to the parents of teens applying for Jobseeker, and those in KiwiSaver earning over $180,000. But when it comes to the old age pension, means testing is too touchy politically, says NZ Herald political editor Thomas Coughlan. He tells The Detail why the pension is off limits, for now. 'There are things we get universally. Universal free education, a lot of health services are free. But cash payments, those are mostly means-tested with one big exception.' Every New Zealander who hits 65 is entitled to NZ Superannuation. 'You could be a billionaire or you could have absolutely nothing and you will get it. 'Culturally, politically we tell ourselves that we earn superannuation, we work hard we pay taxes our whole lives and when you retire you deserve to get the benefit from the government that you have paid for for your entire working life. That is the political bargain, I guess, at the heart of superannuation.' Means testing superannuation is also not as straightforward as other benefits where Inland Revenue knows exactly how much beneficiaries or their parents earn. But most superannuitants don't work, making a means test on income difficult to manage. That leaves asset or wealth testing, 'which is just uranium wrapped in barbed wire'. Coughlan says raising the retirement age is seen as the better of 'two horrible options' and National has already signalled plans to gradually raise it to 67. But that is also fraught. The Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson doesn't like either option but is 'more keen on the consideration of means testing than I am of raising the age'. 'But if that became a thing (raising the retirement age) then I would be arguing that it's a really comprehensive and well-thought-through policy change that considers a retirement system as a whole, not just about NZ Super, not just about KiwiSaver but the impact overall on future citizen New Zealand pensioners,' Wrightson says. She calls the debate around superannuation a gender issue. 'The commentators are mainly men. The issues around NZ Super, and who gets it and when, need to be looked at with a really strong gender lens because women are the ones who get disproportionately affected.' The Detail also talks to pensioner Doug Beever in Australia where the pension kicks in at 67 and is means-tested. Beever says he's happy with the arrangement because all of his working life he has been paying into a private retirement fund, a compulsory version of a KiwiSaver scheme that has been in place for decades. Wrightson says that is the difference between the two countries and why we can't copy Australia's pension model. The historic superannuation plan is a reason why the country is quite well-off, 'because those funds are in the billions and billions now. And secondly, people have got a decent pot themselves, so when you get that you can absolutely then talk about means testing, you can talk about raising the age … you've got more levers to your bow when your citizens have been protected by a decent regulatory environment. 'This is not what's happened here.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
1News
24-05-2025
- Business
- 1News
Who's worse off under new KiwiSaver changes?
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."
Scoop
24-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Budget 2025: Who's Worse Off Under New KiwiSaver Changes?
Article – RNZ The increase in contribution rates should make most savers better off – but it won't benefit everyone. , Money Correspondent 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 percent from employees and 4 percent from employers. Over a saver's lifetime, including a first home withdrawal, it estimated this could make a high earner 28 percent better off at retirement and a low income or part-time worker 21 percent better off. But some people won't be better off at all. Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson said about 20 percent 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. Total remuneration 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.' Lower-income workers 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 percent or 20 percent of their total balance at 65. With the reduction, it would be 6 percent to 11 percent. 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 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.'
Scoop
24-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Budget 2025: Who's Worse Off Under New KiwiSaver Changes?
, Money Correspondent 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 percent from employees and 4 percent from employers. Over a saver's lifetime, including a first home withdrawal, it estimated this could make a high earner 28 percent better off at retirement and a low income or part-time worker 21 percent better off. But some people won't be better off at all. Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson said about 20 percent 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. Total remuneration 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." Lower-income workers 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 percent or 20 percent of their total balance at 65. With the reduction, it would be 6 percent to 11 percent. 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 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."
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Planners approve additional data center buildings, with acoustic conditions
The Frederick County Planning Commission has approved the site plan for three more buildings on the Aligned Data Centers project, with limits on noise. The Aligned Critical Digital Infrastructure Facility features four buildings and an energy transformer yard on 74.89 acres near Adamstown. The Frederick County Planning Commission approved the first data center building in May 2023 and the transformer substation in March 2025, according to county records. Building 1 will occupy the southern-most location on the site, followed in order by Buildings 2, 3 and 4 heading north, according to county records. Buildings 2, 3 and 4 total 1.15-million square feet. The commission approved the submitted plan unanimously on Wednesday with the following additions: a 22-foot-tall concrete wall enclosing Building 3, as well as along the east sides of the generator yards for Buildings 2 and 4. Sound concerns The data centers are 24-hour-a-day operations, requiring significant infrastructure to cool machines and have backup power available. Jessica Baker, technical program manager for Aligned, said generators for the site planned for a worst-case scenario — total power loss — an outcome that has been 'very few and far between' at other locations. 'Most of our sites, we very rarely see the generators run outside of monthly testing,' Baker said. Emily Piersol — an acoustics consultant with Wrightson, Johnson, Haddon, and Williams, an international design and consulting firm with corporate offices based in Carrollton, Texas — said the acoustic report her team performed considered 84 rooftop chillers per building for Buildings 1, 2 and 3 and 56 rooftop chillers for Building 4. Baker said it is standard for Aligned to have chillers on the roof and generators at the ground level. The plan was for 164 generators on site between the four buildings, according to Piersol. She said her team analyzed the three step-down transformers within the transformer yard portion of the substation, as well. Planning Commissioner Carole Sepe said she remembered screening required for acoustics from the Building 1 plans, but saw no concrete panels in the drawings for the three additional buildings. 'Where's the concrete panel screening?' she asked. She said the plans as she read them included mainly chain-link fence or perforated screens, with concrete only included in one partially screened section. 'All the generators should be closed, not with just a metal fence,' Sepe said. 'The only thing that should be open is just the access to it.' Sepe said she was not concerned about the buildings, but about the fenced generator yards. Baker said she agreed with Sepe's concerns about how the concrete walls were not clear enough in the presented plans. Piersol said her model factored in a concrete screening wall south of Building 1; a chain-link fence between Buildings 1 and 2; visual screening by the loading docks; and visual screening with 'acoustical properties' north of Building 4. She said that noise is measured not at the property boundary, but at the nearest agricultural property near the intersection of Ballenger Creek Pike and Manor Woods Road. Piersol said the analysis found the sound levels on the east and west sides of Building 2 would be 70 A-weighted decibels — the limit for industrial uses — and thus did not require sound screening. She said the study considered a 22-foot concrete screening wall around the generator yard by Building 3, between the building and transformers. Piersol said the noise by the generator yard at Building 4 was less than 70 dBA and thus did not require screening walls. She said the difference came down to the fact that the physical building screens the noise from the generators at Building 4, but not Building 3. Additionally, Baker said the walls along the east could be designed to have aesthetic qualities in addition to sound-dampening ones. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Access to the site will come from Manor Woods Road until Quantum Place South is opened to traffic, with the goal of being able to build each building in phases through the secure access point to the site, according to the records. The plan called for 226 parking spaces, when only 90 were required by code, according to county records. Part of that offsets the proposed six large loading spaces when 115 were required. This was due to the expectation that there will be less pedestrian movement because it's a secure facility, according to the records. Baker said this parking arrangement better served shift changes for workers of a 24-hour-a-day facility. Additionally, the plan calls for 10 bike racks and 20 total spaces, meeting county standard. The racks will be uncovered, according to Graham Hubbard, a planner for the county. Baker said she was open to discussing bike rack protections, to encourage alternative commutes to the site. Hubbard said the lighting plan for the three additional buildings would be the same as the previously approved for Building 1. Graham Cannady, project manager for Corgan, a Dallas, Texas based architectural firm, said his firm was not the original architect of the project but would gladly incorporate rooftop screening to ensure continuity throughout the project. 'Same thing goes with the yard screening,' he said. 'If that is required, we will gladly add the additional screening if necessary in lieu of chain-link.' Following a question from Planning Commisioner Sam Tressler III, Baker said it would be possible to finish all four buildings by 2028. 'Market conditions and customer demand drive what that ends up looking like,' she said. Baker said Aligned already has an end user lined up for Building 1.
