Financial advisory firm National Capital warns non-contributing KiwiSaver members risk $113 billion retirement shortfall

"Ditch super.  Replace it with Universal KiwiSaver at rates good enough to give people old age security."

Are you suggesting a significant % of the population get nothing because they're been stay at home mums and/or are on such low incomes their Kiwisaver balances won't cover more than a year or two? 

"And why tax it.  Tax-free at entry, during and exit."

Have you done the maths on that?

Have to disagree with any of that Pacifica.

Use auto payments

Disenfranchisement?  Not sure of your point.

Banking profits.  A bigger KS would mean more fee competition.  Lazy if you don't take advantage of that.

Hardship.  There should not be a hardship provision.  If there is one, it should be tough anyway.

  - yes I know we have wise self investors here on interest.co.  But KS should be universal, it's to protect you from less wise, who you otherwise could be supporting later.  And it's just part of your portfolio.

Yep.  Pay off the mortgage asap.  Feels like (actually a real) a slog for a while.  Then gets exciting.

Keep up KS too.

But according to interest comments all boomers are loaded greedy landlords so this can't be true.

This is a very interesting comment!:

"Transitional housing leader Sophia Murray said its kuia/kaumātua programme was successful but highlighted shared living tended to suit men better because many women were used to being the head of their households."

On the North Shore the Auckland Council has sold off lots of retirement housing the North Shore City Council used to own...... Which have been demolished.

Criminal!

Yes Kate.  Said it before and will keep saying it.

New Zealand's house price explosion is our greatest (edit:  social disaster) disaster.

Has crept into every corner of our living.  Pernicious and nasty.

So according to them they should be able to live on a jobseeker benefit or supported living. Requiring a higher cost pension benefit to those over 65 including over 80% who don't need it at all means there really is less money for essentials to live for those who literally cannot work because of disablement and cannot afford housing (even though in that case in the article they had the means early on in life to do so and opted not to, they are seeking only a premium style of housing and they are able to work).

I know several in council housing with investment properties, businesses, and who gamble away the pension regularly in the casino. Why are we turning away homeless families for council housing while investment property owners over 65 get the pick of the crop of social housing simply because of a birthday. It is ludicrous that this women in the article opts and refuses to live with family, refuses to live in anything but a free standing single level property by herself and instead thinks she is entitled to council housing or automatic support even though her income is much higher than most homeless families and disabled under 65. It is almost like at 65 people get a lobotomy that makes them think they are entitled to a free lazy ride even though they are able to work and have support & sufficient funds.

The fact she is using extreme emotional manipulation and abuse of her family members in this position, expecting them to fix her issues but placing impossible conditions is rather disgusting. I know family like that and their children will celebrate their death as the emotional abuse and manipulation will stop and the chapter on their child abuse can be closed. Emotional abuse of family is not ok, especially when the drama and torment of that family is intentional even though the family are doing their best to meet impossible conditions and cannot magically do everything the women wants. All simply because she decides she wants a premium but is not prepared to do any work for her housing not even to plan for herself.

And Labour did not reverse it.

Excellent contribution Epsom.

Fun fact most of those who actually need the Australian super did not have steady work income and do not have investment savings because here is a clue they actually could not work. So there literally are no employer contributions for those people. It is ironic then you think there are potential employers and jobs for everyone including those in hospital settings. Yep employers can't wait to give jobs to those on chemo or with non RR MS who are absent 70% of the time (often the most severely unwell and even bedridden) and just severely sick the other 30% and unable to work any public or colleague facing roles because of severely compromised immune systems.

But sure lets assume everyone is able to get a work income over 80k a year, enough to save and afford housing. We know it is impossible for most people (over 65% of the population) but it lets you pretend everyone has the same opportunities to save and invest to have a retirement fund, eh. All so the banks can cut more of those sweet fees off the top... by any chance you would not have a career related to the investment markets. Most kiwisaver advisors and investment advisors are tainted as they are so divorced from reality and most of the population's incomes. They knowingly promote biased policies that only favors those in the upper quartile of incomes (and personally benefits them more than most people who actually need retirement support).

This bias and self serving advice is really clear in the locked in design that secures a investment provider's income stream. They don't need to advertise as much because consumers of these old investment products dressed up in the emperors new clothes are often locked in early and it is much more difficult to transfer than literally any other investment type. Even worse they have less reporting and less regulatory requirements for kiwisaver investments then is required for all other investment types. It is for the providers a win win.

However for most smart investors it is easy to see the severe flaws in Kiwisaver. I spotted ANZ was pocketing the government contribution and not paying it into ~50000 customer accounts simply by back checking the math and the flawed code they used. Most those ~50000 customers could not even see they were missing out on their government contributions because that information was being hidden from them in the website and app reporting and statements. When ~50000 customers cannot even tell what is their income, (from them, employers & govt) and what is investment performance income from the data provided to them there is a severe problem with the investment service. ANZ did a short apology article, did not contact or inform most customers of the loss, and they did not compensate them for the lost investment income either. It was a minimal level of customer service required and no updates were made to the information provided to the customers of the kiwisaver investments. Sweep it under the rug, business as usual. Kiwisaver is a goldmine if you are keen to have a steady source of fee income with even less work, less competition for your products and less customer rights.

This was not an issue isolated to ANZ. Most Kiwisaver investment providers knowingly provide less services and information to customers then they do for other investment products. They can easily scrape new fees of work they were doing already with very little honesty in their services and advertising. At best it is disturbing to hear anyone who recommends kiwisaver over self managing investments with full flexibility to adapt to life conditions. Like hearing anyone who suggests retaining the investment with homelessness and death by critical illness as a positive and they will be real glad they had kiwisaver when they should have turned 65 but died instead. Here is a clue there is a reason those with limiting medical conditions that kill them often before the age of 45 needed a special clause in Kiwisaver; however they left out most of the life limiting conditions in that clause.