When Treasury prepared its four-yearly Long-Term Fiscal Position report in 2021, the forecasts showed that the rising cost of funding the healthcare and pensions of retirees would bankrupt New Zealand by 2061 if policies remained the same.
The problem is demography. While retirees currently number around 800,000, between 2060 and 2070 they are expected to approach 2 million. At that time, the number of workers per pensioner, will fall from around four to one today, to just two to one.
Thursday’s Budget is likely to reveal that Labour’s gross mismanagement of the economy has made the problem much worse. Due to their reckless borrowing and spending, our economic situation has deteriorated significantly.
This means the financial collapse predicted by Treasury will arrive sooner than anticipated – unless there is a change of heart by the Government and a major change in the direction of policy.
Sir Roger Douglas, the New Zealand Minister of Finance who saved the country from bankruptcy following the disastrous reign of Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, wants to rescue us again.
For the last 50 years Sir Roger has attempted to replace our unsustainable pay-as-you-go pension scheme with an individualised savings scheme that would provide security in old age.
In this second of his two-part Budget series, Sir Roger recounts his frustration at trying to persuade political colleagues of the need for change:
“Most politicians are tribal, they support their political party right or wrong, often in the hope of getting a ministerial job down the line. I never fitted into that category of politicians. For me, policy always came first – that is policy I believed to be in the best interests of New Zealand.
“I got sacked from the Labour Party front bench in the early 1980’s for writing an alternative budget.
“Today, I still find it impossible to stay silent… I make this point, because the policy I have laid out, will be opposed by every existing political party in New Zealand. However, I believe very strongly, that the policy points I make, need to be made, in order to give New Zealand a chance to move forward in a positive way.
“In 1972 when I introduced my Private Members Superannuation Bill to the House, every Labour Party caucus member supported it. Why? Because they wanted their voters to have what Members of Parliament had – a superannuation account in their own name. They were aspirational for their voters.
“Unfortunately, David Lange egged on by Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and some of his staff led by Margaret Pope, would not have a bar, of any major social policy changes to education, healthcare, super, or welfare. I was simply unable to convince David, that constructive personal choice was basic to human dignity, and further, that the removal of dependency within the welfare system would be a huge step in the right direction.
“With Lange opposed to any major changes to the social services area of the economy, nothing meaningful was done to it between 1987 and 1990, nor I might add in the years since then. So, 34 years later, in 2024, New Zealand’s performance in social services is far worse than it was in 1987.”
So, what can be done?
The reality faced by New Zealanders is that while we pay tax into a system to fulfil our half of a social contract – that guarantees the State will look after us when we are sick, deliver a good education for our children, and provide a living income when we retire – the Government hasn’t kept its part of the bargain.
For most families, decisions over where children are educated, whether medical treatment is available, and what level of income assistance is required, are made by bureaucrats who know very little about them, and care even less.
And that’s a real problem – most of the institutions that deliver social services to New Zealanders have become bureaucratic empires that are costly, self-serving, and staggeringly inefficient.
Is it any surprise that within such an environment, more money does not deliver better outcomes? Is it any wonder that the lot of the most disadvantaged in our society continues to deteriorate? How can providers be subjected to the discipline of consumer choice when social service systems are dominated by state monopolies?
The end result is children being forced to attend failing schools; patients no longer getting the medical treatment they need; and our young people having no guarantee there will be a pension for them in old age.
New Zealanders are also extremely vulnerable to the changing whims of politicians.
When it comes to superannuation, one government might promise to keep the retirement age at 65, while the next might pledge to raise it.
In education, while one government might allow parents to send their children to the school of their choice, another might restrict access through zoning.
In healthcare, while one government might prioritise funding to clear hospital waiting lists, another may prioritise cycle lanes.
In welfare, while a government that encourages reliance on the State by not requiring the able-bodied to get jobs might claim to be compassionate, their actions can have devastating consequences as vulnerable beneficiaries slide into the trap of intergenerational dependency, limiting their potential and putting their children at grave risk of poor life outcomes.
And for those living in a state house, who were wooed by political promises of a house for life, not only are they left extremely vulnerable in old age with no real security and no valuable asset as a buffer against adversity, but they have no inheritance to pass onto their children to give them a step up to a better life. As a result, their poverty risks becoming intergenerational.
While most New Zealanders are vulnerable to such policy changes, some Kiwis are unaffected. In general, these are families that own their own home and have the financial resources to send their children to an independent school of their choice, to purchase health and income protection insurance, with funds left over to invest to generate a passive income in old age.
The reality is that if New Zealanders didn’t have to pay so much tax many others would do the same – send their children to independent schools, purchase health and income protection insurance, and contribute to a super savings scheme to generate income in their old age.
In other words, instead of having to accept inadequate services from the government, they too would have the capability to find alternatives that would deliver better value for their money with more direct benefits to themselves and their families.
In effect, this is the basic objective of Sir Roger’s plan for reform. He wants to create a low-tax future where New Zealanders are empowered to send their children to a school of their choice, acquire health and unemployment insurance, secure their own home, and build themselves a multi-million-dollar retirement savings scheme.
Many countries already have such policies in place.
In 1955, Singapore established the Central Provident Fund of individual savings accounts, to provide a pension annuity on retirement, health insurance, and funds for home ownership. Due to the power of compound interest, Singapore has been transformed from a third world backwater with few natural resources into one of the most prosperous nations on earth.
Other countries have shown that a child’s education is improved when parents are empowered by choice. By funding a child, instead of a school directly, parents are able to send their children to whichever public or private school best meets their needs. Sweden now has a thirty-year track record of school choice and in Holland a vibrant private school sector has emerged since the state monopoly in education ended in 1917.
In New Zealand, while parents and students are free to choose the provider that best meets their needs at preschool and tertiary levels, this does not apply at primary and secondary schools. Instead, they largely operate as state monopolies, with parents having little choice of where they can send their child – unless they can afford private education.
When it comes to healthcare, in many countries around the world, including Switzerland and Germany, citizens enjoy excellent health care through a universal health insurance cover that eliminates hospital waiting lists and provides cost-effective medical treatment.
In Singapore, the health insurance component of their Central Provident Fund’s contributory savings scheme provides excellent health care at a very low cost.
Many countries, including Germany and Switzerland, operate unemployment insurance schemes, and others such as Denmark and the Netherlands also provide accident cover.
Meanwhile, the on-going decline in social services in New Zealand is impossible to ignore.
A new report from the Institute of Economic Research shows a quarter of all new primary school teachers hired during the period Labour was in government could not pass the basic compulsory maths required of 15-year-olds, while 58 percent fell short at Level 1 science.
In the health sector, thousands more patients are now waiting longer for surgery and appointments than they were 18 months ago. The number of people waiting longer than four months for a first specialist appointment has almost doubled to over 68,000 in December.
This is a direct effect of Labour’s disastrous health reforms that gave greater importance to power sharing with iwi leaders than it did to patience outcomes.
In retirement, most New Zealanders not only have little or no nest egg to protect themselves from adversity, but growing numbers no longer even own their own home. New Zealand used to be a home ownership nation, but that has fallen from 78 percent in the 1980s, to around 55 percent today. As a result of the declining affordability of housing only 38 percent of people between the ages of 55 and 64 are now mortgage free. For those of retirement age, around 28 percent are either still paying off a mortgage or are renting. This is having a dramatic effect on wealth disparity.
And a new paper from the OECD shows New Zealand now has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the developed world!
While democracy was founded on the principle of government of the people by the people for the people, in New Zealand, we now have government of the people by the government for the government. That’s leading to poor outcomes across the board. The question is what is the best way to return control of our democracy back to the people it is intended to serve?
And the answer to that is surely to give people greater control of their future.
Sir Roger’s reform programme would start with an individualised super savings scheme. Thanks to the power of compound interest, once the system reaches maturity, every New Zealander could look forward to having around $3 million dollars in their individual savings account on retirement.
Such a savings scheme would also include all-of-life health insurance to guarantee quality medical care when required; an income protection scheme to cover unemployment, sickness, and accidents; education accounts so children can attend the school of choice; an opportunity for home ownership for everyone who works; as well as one of the lowest tax rates in the world – 12.5 percent for personal income tax, company tax and GST.
This plan would transfer power away from government-based institutions to individuals and families. Such a scheme would not only be sustainable, but would provide an enduring solution to poverty, disadvantage, and inequality.
If Sir Roger is right in his prediction that none of the existing political parties will support the proposed reforms because they don’t want to relinquish their tight-fisted grip on power, then we will need an army of Kiwis who are prepared to help us create the momentum we will need for a change of this scale.
If you would like to join us on this journey, please make sure you let us know HERE.
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Do you support the concept of replacing the present pay-as-you-go pension scheme with a savings-based system for all New Zealanders?
*Poll comments are posted below.
*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.
THIS WEEK’S POLL COMMENTS
| Pensions should be limited to the same level as unemployment benefits. Don’t like compulsory funds that make a great living for banksters. | James |
| Yes I do. But it must be govt untouchable. Otherwise we end up with tinkering or a muldoon type closing it down. It must be for retirement years only. | Kevan |
| We desperately need this NOW for the future of NZ. | Ching-Wei Yeoh |
| If it ain’t broke then don’t fix it | Rayna |
| The question is – which politicians will dare to dare to take this step? Should be an all-party plan but extreme ideology and race issues in NZ will probably prevent this. | mary |
| Sir Roger Douglas never deals with wily Maori such as Tipene O’Regan and his cohorts who have effectively destroyed the economic base New Zealand once had which commenced in his first parliamentary term. Now Winston Peters is vehemently opposed to changing superannuation. Perhaps he should talk to him. | Monica |
| Makes good sense to me. Where and when do we start? | Tim |
| But trying to change the ‘culture’ will be like trying to turn a very large rudderless ship away from disaster. | Francis |
| It’s going to take real courage to change the present system | Anon |
| look at australia | Craig |
| I think a combined system would be needed because of the vicissitudes of individual working lives. | Peter |
| Kiwisaver is working well and should be made compulsory | tony |
| I’m personally very worried for myself,my children and grandchildren. I doubt I will be able to retire and my family will have no hope re home ownership | Julie |
| To supplement our retirement we sold our family home & bought something cheaper. Enabling us to retire early, travel & enjoy life | colin |
| The current pension scheme looks as though it is sailing into troubled waters and as a consequence will be difficult to maintain a realistic livable outcome in the not too distant future. So yes to a national savings-based system would look to be a better option. Robert Muldoon’s canceling of the last pension savings-scheme was a great shame. This is why any high level Government or local council decisions of national importance should be by way of a citizens referenda. The so called authorities are captured by a collective ideology which leads to dumb decisions that dump hurt upon us all. | Garry. |
| Only wish it wasn’t too late for me!!!! | Catherine |
| It’s a no-brainer! | Martyn |
| KiwiSaver is the best thing that has happened in this arena, sadly for many of us, too late to make a big difference but definitely the concept of the future | Maxine |
| Yes, well done Sir Roger! | Peter |
| it should have happened 50 years ago . Political parties hold us at their whim and we have NO stability in this country. | Marie |
| What of Norman Kirk’s very good scheme that Muldoon spitefully and petulantly axed? | Tony |
| I have been saving for my retirement for years (with no incentives) and I am still saving in retirement. | Vic |
| Reference the Australian superannuation scheme – compulsory savings | Gavin |
| The sooner we get started the better. | Ronmac |
| I think it would be a tragedy for those at the bottom of the heap | Perce |
| I was part of the scheme that was in play before Muldoon quashed it. In our company a number of our employees stayed in it – the compounding interest kicked in and the benefits were very meaningful. | Maurice |
| I cant believe this idea has been rejected for so long. It just seems to make so much common sense! | Ron |
| I look forward to a scheme where if you put into the pot then you can benefit from the contents of the pot. If you don’t contribute then you cannot benefit – your choice. | Derek |
| Savings based investment is not secure. Remember the USA banking collapse. Sharemarket collapsed and workers lost their super. | gilbert |
| Less government is better for everyone in the medium to long term. Slash government spending now. Slash the civil service back to the bare bones. | Richard |
| The major problem with it, is that a new incoming government could scrap it. It has been meddled with before, even back to the 1930’s, so it needs to be constitutionally impossible to change. | Vic |
| I agree but those who can’t or won’t work and pay tax will still be funded by those who do. Or have I missed something? | Mike |
| I was heartbroken when the 1974 super scheme was discontinued by Muldoon. Politicians wake up and do the right thing. Perhaps beneficiaries need to pay in also and all able bodied beneficiaries work for the dole under army supervision. | Brenda |
| Sounds good to me. It works. | Sheila |
| I used to pay into a scheme, many decades ago, until the govt stopped it and used all the funds to pay for their pet projects. Of course they kept their own scheme going. I would agree to another scheme (although I am approaching retirement) as long as the Govt cannot touch the funds. Kiwi Saver is useless with it s high fees and low returns and I wish I had just kept saving my money and keeping it in the bank. | Barbara |
| We only need one parliament | Barry |
| Most definitely. KiwiSaver has a record of poor performance and is not fit for purpose | David |
| Its the least we can do for our kids who want to stay in NZ and have families. I dont want my son to go to Oz because he is taxed up to the eyeballs and cant afford to buy a house and retire with nothing. Only to give more to the people we have in this country that dont want to work or contribute. Mark my words the entitlement and handouts will only increase. As an income tax payer, my entire life I am so bloody sick of paying for lazy long term benefeciaries, I know people like this and they think that they are entitled to handouts which then flows onto their kids. An acquantence of mine never worked a day in her life, her daughter just had twins and is on a benefit. Makes my blood boil. | Mary |
| Yes, I am convinced that compulsory saving is the way to go having been forced into to a compulsory employer scheme when I started work. | Steve |
| Such a move will prevent payout of the accumulated pension funds to the account holder, whenever they change employment., which negatively impacts on their final pension payout . | Pierre |
| but too late for many of us “boomers” | mike |
| Except, who will keep providing for those who never work? | Peter |
| The welfare bill is far too high and there are far too many bludgers who are not prepared to put their shoulder to the wheel. | Kerry |
| I have been a supporter of Roger’s plan from the time he first discussed it in the early 80’s. It was brilliant then and more necessary now. | ALAN |
| Best option available | doug |
| It makes perfect sense. This is probably the reason that it will not be enacted. | Philip |
| In this age of computers it is now easier {with less cost) to administerI could see issues arising for people on no or low incomes having to be propped up by the state anyway | Bruce |
| Should never have been scrapped in the first place. People would be so much better of now | Tony |
| Even though I am already a pensioner, I know that there are still things wrong. The Direct Deduction of overseas pensions. | Peter |
| New Zealand definitely needs a change in direction away from state dependency | Brian |
| Has worked elsewere | Jo |
| Yes, but with the caveat – if we as a country don’t produce more “stuff’ (GDP) there won’t be enough resources to fund the individualized super saver scheme proposed by Sir Roger. Increasing productivity, especially of labour, through capital deepening, is essential to increasing our GDP per capita, or per hour worked. Only then will we be able to fund the idiviualized savings scheme. Sir Roger must also address productivity. | Ralph |
| Overdue | John |
| Such a scheme would clearly be sustainable – pay-as-you-go will not be. | John |
| Absolutely! | Janine |
| it has become increasingly obvious the pension is no longer fit for purpose, to many people can not get by on the pension alone let alone enjoy their retirement years. | Nigel |
| Cancel it and go back to what it was. | clive |
| Yes & along with the other reforms Sir Roger suggests. | John |
| I have seen the Singapore CPF scheme first hand and the benefits it has brought to the country and all citizens. We are 40 years too late to bring in the same in NZ but still better late than never. | Frank |
| It should have been done long ago and in fact was, but it was scuppered by Robert Muldoon, much to the detriment of this country now | Trevor |
| it would be nice to live in a society where people are not reliant on govt to survive | Noel |
| Worked for us. | Jeff |
| The worst mistake Muldoon ever made, was abolishing the excellent pension scheme that Sir Rodger had proposed. His excuse at the time, if I remember correctly, was “It would put too much financial power in the hands of Socialists.” Real reason of course was, he had not thought of the idea himself. New Zealand is only maintaining or slightly increasing its population now using immigration, often from poorer nations than our own. This would indicate that unless steps are taken now, benefits including retirement or age care benefits will certainly be impossible to maintain. | A.G.R. |
| NZ is floundering in a mud pool right now, so any idea that clears the water must be considered in 2024 | RICHard |
| This has to be the answer. | Catherine |
| A Government enforced savings system is another form of tax. and like the one introduced back in the 70’s is likely to be an unaffordable percentage of income for folk with mortgages and families. It was back in the 70’s and the situation would be much worse today for young families struggling to save anything. Government just needs to be far more judicious with it’s spending on Government service empires and divisive incentives for certain sectors of the population. | Bryan |
| It is clear that the present system is not working so the system must be changed for any proven better system of tax etc. | John |
| It will need to be phased in. | Paloma |
| Absolutely, we need these big government institutions gone. We are not a flock of sheep but are individuals who can make their own descisions. | Don |
| It is a great idea. I would suggest one change to this scheme. It is that the scheme must be able to continue in perpetuity to prevent it being at the whim of a change in the make up of the Government. | Steve |
| This is a no-brainer. Muldoon’s lowest moment (and there were a few) was to destroy the New Zealand Superannuation Scheme.in 1975. | Colin |
| Long over due | Tony |
| I am now 79 and it has been obvious to me for at least 50 years that our present retirement funding arrangements need a radical overhaul | Barry |
| We cannot sustain the present system for long | Arthur |
| Let’s do this for our children and their children. | Robin |
| Hell yes, lets get it rolling and turn this country around. | Fraser |
| bit late as retired | Chris |
| people who were unable to earn a good living through their life eg people with mental or physical health issues would have no health support and no pension. | John |
| Muldoon should have been tried for treason. He cost two generations of generous retirement. | Richard |
| Fairer system for all having regard the younger ones will not receive Super as the system will have gagged itself to death! | Robyn |
| A good basic education is the key to success- together with a sound work ethic. The man on top of the mountain didn’t just fall there. Basic is the key word in education too – English, Maths, True Science, True History | John |
| Singapores transformation speaks volumes. I have recently visited there again. It is an example of what works for everyone! | Jan |
| Yes, it is time for our young country to begin adult conversations around such important things. The very things that impact every individual… | Mark |
| Yes —in principle. But that sort of scheme has to be untouchable , cannot be borrowed against or used as any kind of colateral security. To protect that kind of pension scheme and have it prospering , only highly trained and experienced managers must be in charge. All that has to be enshrined in ironclad law. No politicians whatsoever should be allowed to dabble. | Michael |
| Govt’s emptied the Govt Superannation Fund, the NZ Provident Fund, and I wager there is nothing anymore in the Cullen Fund. Do NOT Trust the bureaucracy or Pollies | murray |
| About time Muldoon should never have axed the previous scheme | Greg |
| This was just screw those coming up to retirement. I will pay for others as they go, and have to save for myself. As far as I am concerned, I am paying for others, others can pay for me when it is my turn. I am not boxer the horse. Whilst I support the savings system, each time there is a change, I am the loser. | Andrew |
| I was one of the 3% who voted for NZ Firsts scheme back when. The military had compulsory superannuation contributions. Without that, I doubt I would be in the reasonable, not rich, situation I am now in. | Graham |
| No brainer. Other countries have done so and it is evident the process works. | Dennis |
| Whatever helps to get our Country’s finances back on track. | June |
| I think the concept should be fully researched and be given wide consideration. We can’t continue with the present situation, especially with an aging population. which means more superannuitants and less workers to bear the cost. | Laurence |
| It’s the only fair way! The harder you work the more you contribute and the more you get back when necessary | Chris |
| Join it up with Kiwi saver .. | Mike |
| Long overdue | Stanley |
| This proposal, and a firm reminder to all that personal responsibility is an essential part of life, is essential. | Peter |
| Sounds a good idea but at 81 it is beyond me | Beverley |
| Too late for me but it would be great for younger people. | Murray |
| Yes. The system needs to be one which offers a decent retirement for all without bankrupting the country. All interested groups — employers, unions and political parties — need to be on board so this does not become a political football again. | Gavin |
| Muldoon folly to scarp the original scheme. Just image where New Zealand would be now if that original super scheme had continued. Of course, Robertson /Labourwould have spent it all! | Chris |
| How can something so sensible not get into the light of day. What is wrong with our Parliamentary system that does not promote common sense. | Rob |
| Give the power to the individual | Hugh |
| This is overdue | Robert |
| Anybody following the NZ political and economic performance since say 2000 and hoping to enjoy a significantly longer retirement should also agree. | Jim |
| Tax must fall at the same time | Kevin |
| Good report by Sir Roger Douglas, changes are needed to protect future generations | Brenda |
| The current scheme works well. It is simple and straightforward. A savings based system would mean a lot more administration costs. | John |
| Savings schemes that can be set up, free of govt meddling down the track, must be seriously considered. Vital lessons are there for the picking from certain successful nations elsewhere. One thing is clear – we must get a real debate going on this and somehow (difficult I know) put petty tribal politics to one side. We cannot continue as we are. | Bazza |
| Sir Roger Douglas was correct on this issue as well as many others. Years ago my husband always used to say that Roger Douglas was the first politician he’d met who wasn’t in it for his own gain. His policies were always for the best outcomes for all New Zealanders. | Mary |
| Example around the world amply demonstrate that this is the way to go. | Shaun |
| As originally Australian citizens, we were fortunate enough to benefit directly from exactly this type of scheme bought in during the Hawke labor government. | Colin |
| Before it’s too late for our children! | Ray |
| The fiscally ill disciplined, and beneficiaries will STILL parasite of tax paying New Zealanders | Mike |
| I do support a savings-based system. | David |
| The very sad issue ahead (and behind) for NZ is the ‘I know what’s best’ political decisions – changing governments have given themselves the power to manipulate and change – historically that is what they do! Who could NZ trust? Just look at the Treaty of Waitangi absolute political shambles! Look at the shambles in Health, Education, Roading, Welfare, Justice, Violence, wages and benefits etc. And who sets those policies? Mostly change mind elected Politicians – then add self-centered political activists! Houston – we have a problem!! It’s SO important to look after oneself and family – but OH – governments try to break them up too! Differing Governments want different control! | Stuart |
| Absolutely, have always been in support of such a scheme. As a result I have done similar for myself and now sit quite comfortable in my retirement years. | Lawrie |
| Sir Roger has nailed it. An account where no political party can touch or change is the only way to go. Every NZr deserves the right to a better future at retirement. | Allan |
| Go for it | Allan |
| I AGREE BUT how can people get politicians to release their power & give it to everyone.I cant see politicians giving people ANYTHING,they are just out for themselves,their promises are trust broken just look at luxon’s promises. | Cindy |
| The general description of this scheme and its benefits sounds positive and should certainly be inverstigated. The fact that it seems to work so well elsewhere is enough reason to seriously consider a version of it in New Zealand. | Pieter |
| Yes, better late than never | Graham |
| IF muldoon had not cancelled the compulsory super scheme in 1975 NZ would be one of the wealthiest countries in the world- it is time we made Kiwisaver compulsory and upped the controbution rate | Les W |
| NO. As good as it might sound it would be too vulnerable to interference from politics and providers. The performance of the scheme will also be dictated by the performance of the economy which as we have witnessed can be unpredictable. Security of income is paramount after health and the two are linked. Be very careful where you get your advice from otherwise we will continue to not learn from our history. | Gary |
| Such a scheme will be more fair and helpful and help all NewZealanders! When you look at what other countries have done for their people in term of Democracy! | Dominique Greenslade |
| Something has to give. Kiwi Saver is an example of saving but as we know funds can be withdrawn for various needs. A more permanent compulsory system would certainly assist in retirement. The sooner this is sorted the better outcome will be for future retirees. | chris |
| THIS needs wide support with plenty of promoting Facts | leo |
| Every school leaver should be involved in this scheme from as soon as it can be organised | Andrew |
| The original scheme should have been retained | Gareth |
| The previous Retirement Fund has been plundered and needs to be properly set up as young skilled people leave NZ the aged including me, are left as beneficiaries | Peter |
| i WOULD SUPPORT SUGGESTIONS THAT HELP YOUNG KIWIS TO SAVE MORE FOR THEIR RETIREMENT AS LIFE GETS HARDER FOR PEOPLE AS THEY AGE. | Barbara |
| Current system is kaput | Phil |
| Take back individual control | Gaye |
| Yes. The more you contribute, and over what period of time, the more you get at retirement age. | Grahame |
| Of course, common sense must prevail.NZ is doing too much navel gazing, please look at the many excellent examples in other countries. | Henk |
| Thanks to the Labour Party we are so much in debt. But we need all kiwis to start working together. Not them & us . As one people. Then we might be able to achieve something. | Marlene |
| Yes – the real tragedy here is that it was prevented from going forward in the first place. | Scott |
| We are delving into a classic example of insanity here, by keep on doing the same old thing and expect a different Result. This also smacks of lazy incompetent Government Planners. | Geoff |
| something certainly has to change. I don’t know if it is too late and we should have moved to this years ago but lets do it. | Bronwyn |
| Any system that transfers the controls away from bureaucratic centralized power back to the citizen must be better | Chris |
| Excellent remarks by Sir Roger Douglas. | jill |
| New Zealand is already a bankrupt franchise. New Zealand is financed just like any other business, because that is what it is, a business answerable to the puppetmaster globalist. Suggesting that taxes pay for this and that is pure fantasy and a big fat lie. All the so called taxes (extortion) are designed to keep or increase the impoverishment of the masses (slaves). All the taxes are paid to the Reserve Bank, a privately owned enterprise, owned by our global “investors” who tell the “government” how much they have to play with, and the type of returns that are required for the share holders. Puts a different light on all the gaslighting smokescreens doesn’t it? The answer? Decentralize and take back our country from the criminal globalist! | Neil |
| Something has to be done to improve retirement for years of service to the country.Reliable savings that cannot be changed by any Government for there own benefit. | Michael Andrew |
| Interesting to know that all the policy’s Roger Douglas put in place while he was in parliament still remain today none where ever replaced. | Peter |
| The sooner the better | Heather |
| Its a pity National stopped the super scheme way back in the seventies,we would be so much better off now. But saying that ,there has to law stating that government can’t use use it for political gain. We have to change the system so let’s use the examples of Singapore system and other countries that have successful retirement schemes going. Time is essence here. | Peter |
| Such a scheme would be good for hard working NZers, but dropout support (taxes) would have to decrease to allow us to pay for our own welfare. Crime would increase as would social tension. | Greg |
| would have been very good in 1972 but not so sure it can be put in place now | Colin |
| I like the Singapore scheme where the money you pay in is yours. | Alan |
| As I am now a resident of Oz despite still owing property in NZ and paying 6 figures in tax there, the MSD is trying to cheat me of the pension that I worked all my life for unless I spend 6months (and one day!) in NZ. This has become challenging as I’m undergoing treatment here , which whilst available in NZ would not be remotely of the same standard enjoyed by Aussies. When talking to MSD employees, it’s blatantly obvious they don’t give a toss and that they don’t even try to hide it. Bastards. | John |
| Makes sense and seems to have been proven overseas. | sandra |
| Difficult but neccessary | David |
| A very positive way, far more productive than raising the age with knee jerks of politicians fancy. | Ken |
| It returns responsibility to the individual encouraging self savings and $$ management for future needs. Personal responsibility actions & decisions. | mike |
| Absolutely if you look at the base of taxpayers we’re a dwindling bunch as people are leaving in their droves | Sharon |
| Similar to the old 1 and 6 in the pound | Anthony |
| Some will say it is unfair, however it must happen . | Ted |
| Provided that there is a compulsory element to any pension scheme. Eg Kiwisaver. I cannot understand people’s continued blind faith in Governments after we’ve been repeatedly let down so badly by successive governments. | Geoff |
| Roger was vilified by moronic colleagues who had an anti people culture | chris |
| Ever since first NZ Super Scheme in 1975 it should have been that, Pay as you go was a mistake. | Tony |
| Contributors to a pension scheme should be the primary beneficiaries of that scheme. Investments of the scheme should be focused on NZ-Based enterprises that improve the quality of life for all New Zealanders and provides a secure revenue stream for all beneficiaries. | Martin |
| common sense | Wiremu |
| It would also need to be untouchable by individuals subject to verifiable health needs | Rob |
| Savings based system a win win for everyone. When do we need it Now! | Mary |
| Time to harness the pride and self respect that goes with paying your own way. | Alec |
| but who supports the no contributors who cannot be bothered to work because they are spoon fed at present. how do you turn these blungers around? | Rick |
| Makes more sense | Barbara |
| No brainer | Gail |
| It is time to reward those who work hard through life. They deserve more for their efforts. | Peter |
| sounds good to me – people need to be responsible for their own welfare | erin |
| The Super scheme that we had should never have been abolished! | William |
| Yes, very much so. I thought when I started work, many, many years ago, that part of the taxes I paid would be put into a retirement fund that would support me in my old age. Was horrified to find that that scheme had been axed – surely the worst financial decision made by a government. We really need to go back to such a scheme. | Lee |
| If a country like Singapore can do this so can we | Ken |
| Yes, if it can be done. We have to do something. Pension age needs to go up too. | Andrew |
| And I support progressively reducing paye & company tax, put more $s earned by paid employment back into their hands toallow choices about where they get ed, health etc. | Stan |
| I am open to the concept but need more detail to decide | Lex |
| Should have been implemented years ago when Clark,Cullen and Lange opposed it Hindsight is showing Sir Rodgers Forsight. | Phil |
| The only trouble is, it has to be made Govt proof so no Govt can touch it, it has to remain out of their hands for ever | Colin |
| I would need to see more details, but the current system is definitely not working. | Alastair |
| This must be done sooner rather than later. It will create a huge investment fund and give people a quality retirement rather than a basic no frills one. The current system will break the country financially. Also people should be able to retire when it suits them. High savings will allow early retirement for those that wish. | graeme |
| It started to work way back till Muldoon and Co cancelled it so it is certainly worth another try. Without the middle men and women soaking up the profits of course. | John |
| We have really slipped down the ladder | Peter |
| It must encompass All NZers. | Max |
| I wish we had listened to Roger years ago and ever hopeful we might now! | Sande |
| Personal responsibility must be promoted. | Murray |
| makes sense, too much govt in our lives | mark |
| But need to ensure the savings based system is not corrupted as is the case in the States. We have to learn from Singapore and Switzerland how such schemes are run. The other difference is population stability. There are numerous new immigrants in countyry and an improved immigration system has to be implemented. | John |
| Countries that have this system have proven this should be our way forward | Rayner |
| common sense | Chris |
| Far to late for us old 70’s plus… all the kids and grand kids are living overseas never to return…NZ is a ‘sinking ship’ SOS….Time for a massive RESET Davos style…! | Chris |
| We support a system in lime with Australia where super is paid through income received as a compulsory savings for all New Zealanders. | Jacqueline |
| Along with a reduction in taxes and a significant adjustment to government’s bureaucracy and overspending with no accountability. | John |
| Not at this present moment, at the very least. Later, perhaps – when our economy is in a better shape, we should probably contemplate some sort of extension to a compulsory sort of Kiwi-Saver system | Andy |
| Common sense | mary |
| Absolutely | Evans |
| The current system of PAYG ignores the ever increasing future debt that is continuing to grow each and every year. We should be providing for that liability and matching it with assets/investments that are earing income that is reinvested. | Keith |
| This is, however, a very difficult poll to have a simple yes/no response, as the devil will be in the respective details. In my lifetime, there have been constant major changes to retirement schemes by successive governments that make it almost impossible to effectively save enough for a comfortable retirement period, especially for the average citizen. There has to be agreement by all the parties to settle on a system, once and for all, and then leave it alone. Every government sees this large cache of funds and literally cannot keep their greedy little hands off them. The only scheme that seems to have had some level of success is the Cullen Fund, mainly because of the way it was set up, although fund contribution breaks to have been created by some governments, to simply reduce their own levels of expenditure, which have had some negative impacts although, fortunately, relatively minor. I am, however, not holding my breath that a positive change for retirement funding is imminent, particularly in the current climate, with every political party rowing in a different direction, not even going around in circles, but actually going backwards. A sustainable retirement scheme can only happen when politicians put their individual likes and dislikes aside and consider what is best for the people as a whole, not just themselves. | John |
| The logic is clear and supported by positive outcomes in comparator countries. Politician’s refusal to act accordingly across the house has done NZers a great disservice. | Tony |
| We are well overdue for the change suggested by SIr Roger Douglas. BRING IT ON!!! | Robert |
| The Norwegian savings based pension scheme is now worth 3 TRILLION Usd for a nation of five million folk | Derek |
| Absolutely! The super savings accounts should never have been repealed by Muldoon. If that soper scheme had remained in place NZ would be a rich country. | Derek |
| Yes change the system to one that will provide a decent future for us all. If everyone has individual accounts, it will become impossible for politicians meddle in the way that they can now. | Mary |
| Well done Sir Roger – the eternal visionary! | Pete |
| What a refreshing vision Sir Roger has outlined for the country, compared to the bleak future that’s in store if things don’t change. It’s a no-brainer! | Gordon |
| The policy that’s been outlined would be truly transformational. Just as the 1974 super fund would have been worth mega billions and made the country rich, so too with this scheme. Thank you for presenting it. I will do all I can to help. We owe it to our grandchildren and the the generations to come. | Michael |