sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

ACT pledges to remove tax on KiwiSaver earnings and end Government contributions for members receiving employer contributions replacing this with ‘substantially greater tax relief’

Personal Finance / news
ACT pledges to remove tax on KiwiSaver earnings and end Government contributions for members receiving employer contributions replacing this with ‘substantially greater tax relief’
A pile of coins that have been blurred with piggy banks overlayed on top.
Composite image source: 123rf.com, Unsplash and interest.co.nz

If re-elected into government, the ACT Party wants to remove tax on qualifying investment earnings inside KiwiSaver funds, saying this will allow returns to remain invested and compounding tax-free.

This policy would also apply to non-KiwiSaver superannuation schemes too.

And alongside this, the party says it will end the KiwiSaver government contribution for members receiving employer contributions “and replace it with substantially greater tax relief inside their KiwiSaver accounts.”

ACT leader David Seymour made this election policy announcement on Sunday at the party’s 2026 election campaign launch.

Currently if the KiwiSaver scheme someone belongs to is a widely-held superannuation fund, their investment earnings are taxed at 28%. And if a person's KiwiSaver scheme is a Portfolio Investment Entity (PIE), their investment earnings are taxed at a Prescribed Investor Rate which can be 28%, 17.5% or 10.5%.

KiwiSaver has been a hot topic this election with Labour, National and New Zealand First making sweeping promises to change up the savings scheme.

“Other parties want to force your money into KiwiSaver, then tax you. ACT says it should be your choice, but if you save for the future we will let you get the full benefit of compounding returns instead of taxing you every step of the way.”

The party’s policy document says because KiwiSaver earnings are taxed every year, this doesn’t just remove the tax paid today. “It also removes every future return that money could have earned.”

“Sensitive rules will be put in place to protect the integrity of the tax system and ensure that KiwiSaver remains a genuine retirement savings vehicle and not a way to shelter large existing investment portfolios from tax.”

Seymour says other parties at this election want “to make New Zealanders put more money into their KiwiSaver, leaving less in their back pocket to fund today’s cost of living.”

“ACT is the only party proposing to stop taking money out of their KiwiSaver through taxes.”

He says ACT’s proposed changes mean more of people’s investment returns stay invested and more money is left to compound over someone’s working life.

“This policy would help a 20-year-old builder earning $60,000 save an extra $209,486 by the time they turn 65. A 50-year-old office manager earning $80,000 will have an extra $20,878 by the time they turn 65,” Seymour says.

“We would also end the KiwiSaver Government Contribution for members who receive employer contributions, replacing it with the new tax treatment inside their accounts.”

At the moment, people contributing to KiwiSaver between the ages of 16 to 65 and making an annual taxable income of $180,000 or less can receive a maximum government contribution of $260.72. To get this government contribution, people must contribute at least $1042.86 of their own money between July 1 to June 30 each year.

ACT’s policy document says: “The only real winner from this money-go-round is the bureaucracy that clips the ticket along the way. ACT would rather stop taking the money in the first place.”

Though ACT has yet to release its fully costed fiscal plan, the party estimates that removing tax on KiwiSaver investment earnings would be $873 million in 2027/2028, $965 million in 2028/2029, $1.067 billion in 2029/2030 and $1.177 billion in 2030/2031 - totalling $4.082 billion.

By removing tax on non-KiwiSaver superannuation account earning, the party’s policy document suggests this would cost $193 million in 2027/2028, $214 million in 2028/2029, $236 million in 2029/2030 and $261 million in 2030/2031. This amounts to a total of $904 million.

ACT also estimates that by removing KiwiSaver subsidies, this would have a negative costing of $2.59 billion over the forecast period.

The total costing for this policy over the forecast period totals $2.396 billion.

 

“A country builds wealth when more people own assets, have savings, invest in productive enterprise and have the confidence to think decades ahead," Seymour says.

Speaking to an audience of party faithful at ACT's campaign launch, Seymour says the policy was part of its fully costed Alternative Budget.

“We declare it will reduce Government revenue by around $1 billion per year. We will show in that budget how this is achievable.”

ACT's alternative budget is expected to be released in the coming weeks.

ACT to campaign 'like the future of this green and pleasant land is hanging in the balance, because it is'

Seymour also called this year’s election, the “productivity election.”

“A productivity election is a different election. In a productivity election, we ask a different question. Where does wealth come from?"

“In a productivity election, there is no point in Government attacking businesses. Consumers need them to succeed. We need them to invest and innovate. They need their government policy to uphold their rights, not be the biggest risk.”

“That starts with politicians understanding productivity,” he says.

For five weeks, Seymour says ACT will campaign “like the future of this green and pleasant land is hanging in the balance, because it is.”

“We will fill the halls, pound the pavements, stuff the letter boxes, and post on social media, to bring a message of hope," says Seymour.

“There is no reason why we cannot be the wealthiest on earth … We must overcome our self-doubt as a nation, and rediscover where wealth truly comes from, then set about solving our problems with calm, clear analysis until our troubles are overcome.”

Read the party's policy document here.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

16 Comments

(Make sure when presenting this policy, not to mention the fact it benefits high earners more than low earners)

Up
6

So ACT will be supporting a land tax as this would discourage investment in land (generally low productivity) to free up investment in more productive enterprises?

 

I think not...

Up
6

Any clues what these "more productive enterprises" might be?

Up
0

Not aclue. I am but a common pleb.

Up
1

Hmmm, maybe that's why this regularly trotted out meme hasn't resulted in any noticable change in investment activity? Innovation reaches a certain size, then it's sold off to Wall St before anything beneficial to the greater economy occurs. That will NOT change! Land based activity is the one thing that can't be shipped off, but our suited disciples of the invisible hand sell it off to foreigners as an alternative.

Up
2

Not paying off a mortgage 6x my income would free up money for other things. Stuff like dental care, fresh veges, a decent hair cut, petrol, and other luxury items.

 

Of course, a land tax would need to be accompanied by a refuction in income tax so that the tax take is redistributed.

Up
8

Perhaps signing all the agreements treating overseas investors as local wasn't such a bright idea? Competing with billions of other humans for your house was always going to stretch budgets of those paying with local wages in local currency. 

"Reduction in income tax"?

To what? 50% of NZ population already pay no nett income tax. 

Perhaps come back when you have an idea what this "more productive use" might actually be, then we can discuss the relative merits of where this money is to be chanelled? 

 

Up
0

"ACT to campaign 'like the future of this green and pleasant land is hanging in the balance"

By turning it into a brown, over exploited and polluted wasteland. Freeeedooom.....

Up
8

They're a bit late.

It was green and pleasant - it's now dairy-pug to the horizon and don't swim in the filth. 

All the result of pushing for GROWTH.

They're luck they're reported but no journalisted. 

Up
6

ACT are particularly visionless. What would this numeroligical utopia they dream of actually look like in a 100 years......500 years? It's fairly safe to surmise these people don't look beyond what they can extract for personal gain beyond the next annual report. This industrialisation, this sprawl, this extraction, this consumption? 

What would this all look like if the people of ACT had free reign? As a person who acknowledges the Earth as being a ball of finite size, floating in a vast sea of almost nothing except cosmic radiation, my guess is this utopia would look like yeast in a dish of agar who'd developed technology to process the agar at an accelerating rate, thinking they were exceptional yeasties? 

Up
0

“There is no reason why we cannot be the wealthiest on earth"

We are the wealtiest nation on Earth David. It's just the only values you have are around $$$$ extraction 

Up
10

Lollies being thrown to everyone. 

Will be interesting what happens if the left get in. The greens have some big spending plans paid for by wealth tax, and they also have a few voters behind them. Would Labour go for the wealth tax (probably suicide) or spend and pretend? 

Up
1

While considering this policy (or any other for that matter) it may be wise to remember that any increase in asset values must have a consequent increase in debt

Up
2

And have resulted from a drawing-down of resources. 

Which is a trend towards REAL poverty. 

Up
6

That trend sadly, is baked in....and largely ignored by most....unlike debt.

Up
4

This is a somewhat strange approach by ACT. There are very good reasons to allow retirement saving to compound through time without taxing them every year. Most OECD countries do this. But most OECD countries adopt a different approach. They make contributions to KiwiSaver equivalent accounts tax empt when you pay in, they don't tax the account as it accumulates over time, but then the whole sum is taxed when it is withdrawn. This EET (Exempt, Exempt, Taxed) system effectively taxes saving on an expenditure basis, and it is much less distortionary than the way New Zealand currently taxes retirement savings - and of, course, this is why it is popular in most OECD countries because they (unlike us) actively try to choose taxes that reduce distortions rather than increase distortions.  It also raises more revenue in the long run than our current system, so long as investment returns are higher than the government interest rate, which means tax rates can be lower. When NZ got rid of the EET system in 1989 it made a big mistake, which is why no other country has followed the NZ example. 

 

The ACT system is TEE. This is a prepayment form of an expenditure tax. It also removes the distortion that arises from taxing returns as they compound, but it doesn't collect as much revenue in the long run as the investment returns are never taxed. Some countries use it - in the USA, for example, this tax treatment is called a Roth IRA, which is limited to $7500 per year. However most countries see the advantage of having a tax that is equally efficient as TEE but which potentially raises much more revenue. It means you can reduce other inefficient taxes.

 

andrew

 

 

 

Up
0