Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Kyle: www.google.com/ncr
[no country redirect]
-
Real national income per capita" is not even a real statistic!
Gross National Income (GNI) = GDP plus income received from other countries (notably dividends and interest) less such income repatriated to other countries.
It can doubtless be adjusted for inflation. And population. Perhaps giving real national income per capita...
-
If you have two part time jobs, can your employers each get up to $20 a week?
Ahh - an intriguing question. I'd say almost certainly yes. But I don't *know*. This isn't to the benefit of the saver (except in so far as it would lower the downward pressure on wage rises), but I can't see much else working.
-
Respect, Winston Peters!
You sure there was a comma? Maybe it's an order.
-
Not really sure how the government contribution applies to them, however. Anybody?
The taxpayer will match their savings up to $20 a week, and their employer'c contribution by up to $20 a week - the same as everyone else.
-
My understanding is that the total is capped at 8%.
Nope (at least not any more). You can put in 8%, your "employer's" matching contribution only need be 4%, however.
Keith - at least some of the problem identified by opponents is this:
Someone employed on $30,000 - three kids, high rent. Don't sign up, don't get any money - from either the employer or from tax. Zero benefit.
-
The Government isn't assuming the risk. If you choose the wrong Kiwisaver vehicle and it breaks, you lose.
I keep asking this and keep not getting an answer: how is this different from right now?
Right now, if my investment tanks, and the Cullen fund tanks, I can rely on the Government raising enough money in taxes to fund my pension.
If Kiwisaver is the privatisation of superannuation, which will lead to the eventual abolition of Muldoon's National Super, then this is a major difference.
And if the property market tanks, I still have a house (or two). If my elected kiwisaver fund folds, I have nothing.
I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is a difference from the status quo.
-
the nationalisation o[f] any risk
The Government isn't assuming the risk. If you choose the wrong Kiwisaver vehicle and it breaks, you lose.
No Right Turn comes up with the graph that the government should have
I'm not so sure the Government wants to be trumpetting the fact they're transferring wealth to the rich from the poor who may be unable to sign up.
-
BTW the idea that the 3% reduction in tax (on profits) somehow balances a 4% (less tax = 3%) contribution on employees wages seems like comparing apples and oranges to me and is probably a red herring
Yeah - I think the way Key analysed it was good. Take the cost of tax reduction in a year ($1b?) and the cost of the payroll tax when it gets up and running ($2b?). There'll be some fiddling with the payroll tax counted as an expense (like wages) and lowering taxable income (and hence tax), but I'd have thought that would have been factored into Treasury Costings.
And it'll be worse for employers with high-earning employees - in full flight they'll only get tax credit on their contributions toward kiwisaver of the first $30k per employee. They can lower (or raise more slowly) wages to make up for it, though.
I still quite like the idea. And have some problem with Key's statements on Closeup that Kiwisaver is now somehow complex. But the raw numbers don't add up for business.
-
If that's his principle.
I don't believe he's said it is, I was merely formulating a soundbite-friendly response to someone's suggestion that there couldn't be a principle behind Copeland's move.
The principle of non-interference with family life, to which no-one may in fact adhere, is a principle upon which someone might withdraw from a political party. There are obviously others to which one could nail one's colours, and Copeland is welcome to do that.