- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Sun 11th May 2014

Labour’s compulsory kiwisaver will kill dads

Filed under: Child Support,Gender Politics,General — ashish @ 7:55 pm

With all the discussions going around Labour’s proposed policy on compulsory Kiwisaver, I was quite surprised there was hardly any discussion around how this would impact the non-custodial parents in this country, a group that consists mostly of males.

Labour wants to make a compulsory 9% off the gross wages. Anyone paying child support is having at most 18% per child being taken off their gross income. The cost of living for the non-custodial parent, or any custodial children, are not necessarily taken into account without a pocket-emptying fight. As it is, with the rising costs of living, it is becoming difficult to survive after paying child support, imagine, what is going to happen if another forced 9% is taken off the gross.

It is almost certain that IRD will be looking after the compulsory Kiwisaver payments. Everyone is well aware how quick IRD is to put on fines if there is a missed payment, how quick they are to put up the liability with a small increase in income, and how slow in balancing should the income decrease. And to think they will be monitoring this makes me shudder to the bones.

Not everyone is blessed with an understanding ex. Honestly, I would be an extremely stupid NCP, if I even for an instant think that voting for Labour would be any beneficial.

24 Responses to “Labour’s compulsory kiwisaver will kill dads”

  1. Man X Norton says:

    Good thinking ashish. Income tax plus so-called ‘child support’ plus Kiwisaver will add up to nearly 60% of gross, higher for additional children. That doesn’t leave us much to be fathers to our children, does it? Another way of looking at these figures is that, for one child, we have to part with 26% of the actual income we have after income tax. For Kiwisaver we will then have to part with 17% of the actual income we have after income tax and so-called ‘child support’ has been removed. It’s actually just another way of mathematically saying the same thing, but it better reflects our actual experience of these taxes. In my opinion, the percentages should be stated in those terms, i.e. “so-called ‘child support’ when there is one child will be 26% of your after-tax income”.

    Also, there are many ethical problems with a law forcing us to contribute to profit-making private-sector companies.

  2. soMENi says:

    If it became compulsory to save 9% of gross income with Kiwisaver it could negatively affect the financial wellbeing of many Kai Tahu maori.

    Whai Rawa is a savings scheme run by Kai Tahu, similar to Kiwisaver but it is not compulsory, where tens of millions of dollars have already been voluntarily invested by Iwi members for the future of their children, grandchildren and themselves.

    If Kiwisaver became compulsory, especially at 9 per cent, I’d need to stop my fortnightly investment to Whai Rawa. I doubt I’d be the only Dad affected.

    Labour – anti-father, anti-male … and now anti-Maori

  3. MurrayBacon says:

    Typical Labour policy, not well thought out and based on compulsion rather than offering consumers sensible choices. Patching over problems, carefully avoiding solving the underlying problems.

    In the end, just downright dangerous.

    It reminds me of the Women’s Electoral Lobby document, where they wanted women to not be prosecuted for benefit fraud and National who don’t want to prosecute employers for manslaughter. They underfund Labour Inspectors, to stop them being able to prosecute employers.

    We need to enable consumers, including fathers, to have sensible choices and to take responsibility as parents. Supposedly they have responsibility as parents, but cannot take part in Guardianship decisions, as familycaught$ refuse to honour all legislations in secret caught.

    Where Government refuses to prosecute employers of killed workers, then workers (or families of killed workers) need to be able to enforce accountability by suing the corrupt employers for damages.

    Mexico has been having difficulty with drug dealing gangsters. Private citizens have been dissatisfied with the performance of police and caught$, so they have been forced to protect themselves, from drug dealers and corrupt police and caught$ alike.

    The Government has been forced to admit that they have failed in public protection and that they will need the assistance of vigilantes. More honestly put, they cannot protect the public or even maintain that illusion, so obviously people are going to have to protect themselves.

    Mexico legalises vigilantes, handing weapons to farmers in bid to fight drug cartel Knights Templar

    When judges act against legislation, they are putting themselves in the situation as outlaws, outside of the protection of the legislation.

    Don’t just complain at them, shout at them !

  4. Downunder says:

    Well spotted Ashish – huge implications for men if this were to go ahead.

    The IRD was running a court case to access Kiwisaver accounts to seize funds before maturity at age 65 – it was being defended and I haven’t heard an outcome.

    If successful though, that would mean any child-support arrears or ‘adjustments’ would simply be deducted from a Kiwisaver account, whereas there would be nothing stopping a deduction from an account past the age of 65.

    What could also happen is that any legislation could allow that 9% to be seized at source before it goes to a Kiwisaver account.

    Another temptation for IRD to get men into arrear, as they have been deliberating doing or another money source for feminist lawyers to target in Family Court cases.

    On the upside it could help some workers that don’t have regular fulltime work from getting into arrears if their child support is deducted from Kiwisaver when they are between jobs.

    However it was to pan out, I could see that 9% being a target that in many cases would simply transform into additional child support.

  5. Have emailed the post to both Stuff and NZHerald Opinions. Let’s see if it gets published, although I am not expecting the mainstream media to take any interest in this.

  6. Downunder says:

    Story here

    The above story illustrates the child support mentality that exists in this country. If you can identify some source of money, it is open to attack.

    In the above circumstances the ex is considered an ‘involuntary investor’ because the father was making business decisions that she thought limited her child support payments and was awarded an amount close to $300,000.

    If your ex can establish a debt she could be entitled to the money in your Kiwisaver, whereas for the IRD it is the recovery element.

    The money would be easily accessed once the process is established.

    It comes down to what child support is actually about – female entitlement, not raising children – and you ain’t going to see that in the media any time soon.

    The other aspect of this story that’s worth noting is that while this 9 year battle was going on, that father was active in the economy, and technological development.

    Child Support suppresses economic activity when it is allowed to transfer investment capital into retail spending.

    Another two reasons for men to consider working overseas:

    a. if you paid your child support from overseas you would still be 9% better off.
    b. if you have a retirement fund overseas it is likely to be a lot more secure.

    (Even if the IRD doesn’t win their case to access Kiwisaver before maturity it doesn’t mean you will get the money come 65 because they will get there before you do the day you turn 65 – child support makes Kiwisaver a dead duck for a lot of men)

  7. Basically if you have money, a house or a cash stash somewhere in the bank , the IRD and other branches of government can take what it wants from either your employer as they already do, and say what ever they like, it will be exactly the same or similar as all the seizures from drug dealers that haven’t paid their taxes that they get to keep.
    Its a full on assault on any hard working male that has got somewhere and if your divorce the courts and lawyers haven’t bleed you like a stuffed lizard, then the government will happily finish you off once and for all. Seriously there are ways to minimise your liabilities but the big one is , don’t put money into a house, a bank or safety deposit box where they can take it.

  8. ENOUGH says:

    rebellion

  9. Vman says:

    In theory I am in favour of compulsary super. However there are some caveates:
    1. Any super savings must be in the individual’s name and not accessable by any government department for any reason.
    2. can not be accessed by the family court, IRD, divorce settlement etc. Also it can be evaluated as an asset in divorce proceedings or any means testing legislation.
    3. It must be low or no tax to enter money and tax free to withdraw money at retirement.
    4. The age of retirement is 5 years younger for males than females to reflect life expectancy.
    5. It is non transferable for any reason.
    6. Any changes to the above rules would not take effect until 60 years after the change was passed in parliament.

    Also there would need to be a legislative device to make sure no future government could alter these rules for 60 years if at all. Such as requiring a referendum.

  10. ashish says:

    In theory, everyone is in favour of Kiwisaver. Even I was, by the way it was presented. Isn’t advertisement all about showing the positive and good side of things? But we are all aware of practicality. The 6 things you mentioned are also possible “in theory”. But, are they possible practically?

    In theory I was also very happy with the thought that I will save something for retirement, etc, etc… But when realization stuck, I sat down and wrote that post, so that people can become aware and decide whether the policy has more advantages or disadvantages.

    And I suppose we all know how excellent our politicians are keeping promises ;)

  11. ProudNCP says:

    Your letter made it to stuff! link here:

  12. Apparently, it did. Quite surprised. It’s a good sign.

  13. Downunder says:

    And the letter was open to debate. It has attracted 81 comments so far.

  14. Writing articles straight on child support, family court and cyf etc, do not normally make it into the media. wrapping it up with current issues, etc, normally does the trick, I suppose.

  15. Downunder says:

    Normally – usually not even. Top job, Ashish. Keep up the good work!

  16. Anonymous says:

    So let me get this right: Labour wants to increase taxes by 9% under the pretext of Kiwisaver?

    So this will mean New Zealanders pay:

    20-30% income tax
    18%-30% in child support
    15% in GST
    12% student loan (remember tertiary education in NZ used to be free, so passing this cost onto the individual is effectively a tax)
    9% Kiwisaver

    Now what does that up to…..hmmm anywhere from 74-96% of our income. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the remaining amount is taken up with various other hidden taxes such as rates or petrol taxes.

    So effectively the government now owns its people, forces them to work, takes almost all their results produced, and gives them just enough to live on.

    No wonder its known as wage slavery.

  17. OMG You're (&*)^*( says:

    Your maths is not good.
    No body is taxed at either 20 or 30% income tax across their entire income. It is a stepped process.
    For the average income

    [Median weekly income from wages and salaries (for those receiving income from this source) was $844]

    meaning on the average wage of (apparently) $43,888, you’ll pay tax of $6,700 or just 15.27%.
    On $75,000, you’ll pay $15,670, or 20.89%,
    And on $100,000, you’ll pay $23,920, or 23.90%
    So let me assume an ‘average’ and somewhat realistic figure of 20% income tax,

    Coming back to Anonymous’s calculations,
    say an average 20% tax; 18-30% CS tax, 12% student loan are all correct. That is maybe 50-62% tax (if you have all these).
    ACC levies take then take maybe 1.4%, and you only pay employee contributions of maybe 4% into KiwiSaver. That adds up to 55.4 – 67.4% income gone.
    GST @ 15% is only against the balance (assuming you spend it all), meaning either (44.6 * 0.15 = 6.69), or (32.6 * 0.15 = 4.89),
    This then adds up to 62.09% to 72.29% of your income gone.

    You still have (in round figures) 38% to 28% left to spend, all on yourself.
    And extra taxes and levies and excise duties on petrol, tobacco, alcohol
    And local body rates.

    And out of what is left, THEN you can consider accommodation, food, etc etc etc.

    So another 9% for KiwiSaver? I am sure this will be a combination of the 4% you already pay voluntarily, the 3% your employer has to contribute (on TOP of your salary and wages), meaning just a couple of percent increase for people already contributing; and a whole new tax of the rest ….

    Good luck before you file for bankruptcy ….

  18. Depleted says:

    If any of you 10-20 years out from retiring think there is going to be any form of super available to you when you retire, I have a bridge going for sale in the middle of Auckland – REALLY cheap for what it is – you could even set up toll booths and turn it into a nice little money spinner, …

  19. Jefhrm says:

    Interesting documentary on history channel re Gobbels/ Paralalls can be drawn on how the family violence/culture is being portayed to NZ as awhole ,; Propaganda /the use of media of the time,.; Radio and movies!

  20. OMG! you're f%^^&*($@#! says:

    Oh there’ll be super alright.
    I’m breathing easy, coz a year or so ago, both parties seemed to agree that if there was ever any change to trading super off against kiwisaver, it probably wouldn’t affect those over 50. Read into that, both Labour and National realise that those over 50 will revolt badly if they cut or trade off super against kiwisaver. I’m sweet.

    It’s the under 50′s I worry for. Especially the younger you get.
    Mark my prediction: Next time Labour get it (and it won’t be this year; could be in 3 years; certainly in 6), they’ll make KiwiSaver compulsory. No secret there. They’ve already announced that as their policy, so its only a matter of when. About 3 years after that, they’ll change Govt super to trade off against KiwiSver; probably on a two-for-one ratio.
    If your kiwisaver could provide you say $30,000 per year, no government super.
    If your kiwisaver could provide you say $20,000 per year, govt super will be cut by $10,000
    If your kiwisaver could provide you say $10,000 per year, govt super will be cut by $5,000
    Else you keep your Kiwisaver on top of Government Super.

    Oh they might tinker the actual trade-off percentages. Government super will be guaranteed for those that cannot save enough kiwisaver (mothers at home, people on benefits, criminals in jail etc.
    And they’ll trade off the compulsory kiwisaver against student loans; and maybe reduce tax in favour of increased compulsory kiwisaver contributions, but it will happen.

  21. Depleted says:

    While we are discussing taxation without representation, heres a nice little read on the culture of Guberment and the #$%^’s at IRD if you had any doubts as to their intentions/behaviours.

    Written by an insider beauracrat that was privvy to the Select Commitee review of IRD way back when… ;

  22. Depleted says:

    … to the folks lauding it that their future is secure via super etc;

    Lets not look at our politicians, fickle as their whims may be, … lets look at some of the people pulling their puppet strings.
    Let me introduce you to the batshit crazy face of the IMF – ex-French minister of finance and numerology nutbag, Christine Lagarde;

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-03/expropriation-back-christine-lagarde-most-dangerous-woman-world

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYmViPTndxw&feature=youtu.be

    … and for those of you screwing up you faces and asking smuggly “yeah, so what has this dingbat got to do with me and my pension/retirement?” …

    Let me direct you to a wee bit of a mandate forced thru’ upon NZ banks and implimented under urgency a year or so ago by ‘The Reserve Bank of New Zealand’ no doubt under guidance of the likes of the IMF, its called innocently enough “The Open Bank Resolution”.

    Haircuts anyones?
    Read the actual document – not the narrative politicians/press feed you.

    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/regulation_and_supervision/banks/banking_supervision_handbook/5341478.pdf

Leave a Reply

Connect with Facebook

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are now likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Powered by WordPress