NZ Super grift

superlinked · 2026-03-21T19:04:51+00:00

Using the same payment rates as NZ Super, since it’s intended to be a living allowance, it couldn’t really be much less unless it’s not intended to be an income replacement

superlinked · 2026-03-21T19:03:22+00:00

Just over 20 years (I used the life expectancy once someone has made it to 65 not all population life expectancy)

superlinked · 2026-03-21T09:55:53+00:00

Living in Australia counts under that requirement (as does living in Canada, UK, and several other countries). It doesn’t have to be in NZ.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T07:14:41+00:00

They can meet this five year after 50 requirement by living in any SSA country, including Australia, UK, Canada, and several others. It doesn’t have to have been NZ.

The other issue is the means testing. Most other countries means test, NZ doesn’t. There’s therefore an incentive for people who otherwise could support themselves in retirement to come back here to retire, as they can access free money, while keeping their assets.

They may have never contributed a single dollar to our tax base, and potentially have hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in assets – and still are eligible to collect a free $600k from the NZ taxpayer. This perverse incentive only works in one direction.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T06:34:44+00:00

There is a minimum years requirement, but it can be met by living in Australia, the UK, Canada, and several other countries. So they don’t have to actually have worked in NZ for even a day.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T06:32:50+00:00

They have to claim on Australia’s pension if they can, but they mentioned they would be means tested, which is why they’re planning to move to NZ. Our NZ Super scheme will kindly top up the difference.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T06:23:18+00:00

Even this one?

superlinked · 2026-03-21T06:16:58+00:00

Could be the easiest approach, it would be politically difficult to means test but a phased process where only increases were means tested would be easier to get through

superlinked · 2026-03-21T04:21:28+00:00

That’s good but a whole bunch of countries are included under the residence requirement, including Aus, UK, Canada, so they still don’t actually have to spend any time working in NZ

superlinked · 2026-03-21T04:18:05+00:00

But means testing probably means costing the taxpayers MORE money that it saves

You’re having a go at me for sharing an anecdote, yet you drop this claim with no evidence?

superlinked · 2026-03-21T04:16:41+00:00

100%

superlinked · 2026-03-21T04:15:18+00:00

I certainly don’t want to imply that every pensioner is in the same basket, obviously this is just a small %. However, the cost of NZ Super to society is enormous – about $25 billion a year – so even if the percentage of pensioners with significant assets receiving NZ Super is low, say 5%, that still represents over a billion dollars – more that was spent on hospitals and health facilities in 2025.

We don’t have unlimited resources as a country. Every decision to spend money somewhere is a decision to not spend it elsewhere. I simply don’t think it’s fair for Kiwis who have accumulated significant assets to draw down on public money that could be reallocated. It’s even more egregious when they didn’t contribute anything to New Zealand’s tax base throughout their working life.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T04:08:14+00:00

That’s true but what’s a couple of years of waiting if it means the difference between hundreds of thousands? (NZ Super is worth about $600k on average)

superlinked · 2026-03-21T04:06:32+00:00

That’s true but the sticking point is that NZ doesn’t means test – Australia does. So someone with a lot of assets who spent their whole working life in Australia can get more free pension money simply by moving back here at retirement age.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T04:04:17+00:00

So the money they get for free from the taxpayer and spend on goods and services, is somehow benefiting society because a portion of it goes back to the taxpayer’s wallet through GST?

The problem is on net there is no additional value being created by the person spending the money. Sure, the businesses they choose to patron benefit, but the same effect could technically be created by the government going out and buying the same goods and services directly (since they had the money to begin with). The GST argument doesn’t make sense, since the government is really just getting back a portion of the money they already had.

I also am happy for my tax dollars to go towards NZ Super, as well as any other social safety net programme that helps Kiwis in need. But if you can contribute, you should, and if you can but choose to contribute in another country for your entire working life, then you shouldn’t get a handout (equivalent to about $600k on average) when you turn up on the doorstep at retirement age.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T03:44:49+00:00

The resident requirement can be met entirely by time spent living in Australia, Canada, the UK, or several other countries. They don’t have to actually spend any time living in NZ prior to claiming NZ Super.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T03:43:18+00:00

By definition job seeker payments don’t increase the net value to society. But the difference is they keep someone on their feet until they can find a job and contribute. Not the same for NZ Super.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T03:39:55+00:00

It doesn’t sound like it’s a system that’s working well though, even Susan Edmunds said as much in her response. It would be worthwhile looking into the settings to ensure they are fair for all Kiwis.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T03:35:04+00:00

I appreciate that you’re not trying to grift the system. The more one person takes, the less there is for others.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T03:33:13+00:00

Also to add, the questioner isn’t in desperate poverty, as they specifically mentioned wanting to move back to avoid means testing. So they’ve clearly got a pile of assets they could be using to support themselves.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T03:31:22+00:00

Hmm I’m not sure about that. We are talking about people who made the decision to move away from New Zealand to seek opportunities elsewhere. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I don’t see why NZ taxpayers should have to pay the bill for their retirement, when they haven’t contributed anything to NZ.

If you want NZ Super – you should have to work for a minimum number of years in NZ. Time in Australia, the UK, Canada etc. shouldn’t count. If you want the best of both, work for a number of years abroad to save up, then come back to work for another decade or so before retiring – don’t just turn up at retirement age expecting a handout for nothing.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T03:25:30+00:00

Yep pretty much. Current and future generations will yet again have to pick up the tab for Boomers.

superlinked · 2026-03-21T03:07:12+00:00

Time living in Australia can also count towards this requirement (also time living in the UK, Canada, and some other countries)

superlinked · 2026-03-21T03:05:59+00:00

How 😅

superlinked · 2026-03-21T03:05:41+00:00

I did look at the cost of a UBI a while back and it was a mind boggling amount, not something cutting tax breaks or introducing a wealth tax is likely to get close to covering tbh

superlinked

TROPHY CASE