NZ Herald 25 October 2025

AGovernment — and would-be future governments — please note: KiwiSaver now offers some workers no incentives at all.

And there’s a straightforward fix: get rid of total remuneration in KiwiSaver, under which employer contributions are effectively taken out of employees’ take-home pay.

For most people in that situation, there’s still the government’s KiwiSaver contribution for 16 to 65-year-olds. That’s 25 cents for every dollar a person puts in, up to $261 a year if they put in $1,042 or more. It’s not much, but it all adds up over the years.

However, as you note, the government contribution is no longer given to people who earn more than $180,000. So yes, you might as well suspend your KiwiSaver contributions and save that money in a non-KiwiSaver fund, so you have access to it should you need it.

KiwiSaver gives you nothing extra — except the locking up of your savings. That’s important for some people who might otherwise be tempted to spend the money. But clearly that’s not you.

On the tax situation, the short answer is that the change you plan won’t affect the tax you pay.

Employer contributions to KiwiSaver and other superannuation schemes are taxed slightly differently from the normal PAYE tax on wages and salaries.

While the tax rates are the same — 10.5%, 17.5%, 30%, 33% and 39% — the income cutoff points at which a new higher tax rate kicks in are higher for the Employer Superannuation Contribution Tax (ESCT).

That means for those who happen to have incomes between $15,600 and $18,720, or between $53,500 and $64,200, or $78,100 to $93,720, or $180,000 to $216,000, the ESCT tax on their KiwiSaver contributions will be a bit lower than if they take the money in their take-home pay. It’s just a quirk of the system.

In your case, though, your 39% ESCT tells us your income is higher than $216,000. So both your KiwiSaver contributions and money you receive in the hand are taxed at the same 39%.

By the way, you should note that if you suspend payments to KiwiSaver, you will need to renew that suspension every year. It shouldn’t be a big deal though.

Your situation may not worry many politicians. You’re on a high income, and plan to save for retirement anyway. But others will just spend the money that would have gone into KiwiSaver.

That would include some lower-income people in total remuneration companies. While they still get the government contribution, that may not be enough to motivate them, now that it’s just a quarter of the original maximum of $1,042 a year.

For most employees, employer contributions are the big KiwiSaver attraction.

Total remuneration employers’ removal of that incentive “goes against the ‘spirit’ of the scheme,” says the Retirement Commission. It could be “an explanation for why some KiwiSaver members (who are in paid work) choose to take a savings suspension.”

Back in 2019, the Commission’s Review of Retirement Incomes Policy recommended phasing out total remuneration.

“The absence of a genuine employer contribution” increases “the risk that the demands of the day will drown out the demands of the future,” says the report.

“There is also unfairness when employees compare their situations with their peers in other workplaces, with one receiving a match from their employer while the other does not.”

About 25% of employers use total remuneration for all employees, and another 20% for some employees, says the Commission.

A ban on total remuneration — perhaps phased over a couple of years to help employers cope — could be quite a vote winner.

AGood questions. But we need to compare selling and renting with the couple’s current situation, with their mortgage-free house and “limited savings.”

The money they now spend on rates, house insurance, maintenance and other homeowner costs might not be much less than the rent they would need to pay. Plus they would have about $700,000 proceeds from selling their house — with $500,000 for spending and $200,000 for the grandchildren. There would clearly be more money around than now.

Of course it would be tougher to cover their rent with NZ Super when there’s only one of them. But other expenses, such as food and clothing, will be lower. And they might be happy at that stage to move into a smaller place.

Still, I agree with you that it would be better to put money for the grandkids in their wills, rather than setting it aside now. Then, if one spouse is struggling after the other dies, or they face big medical or residential care costs, they can use the money for that.

Some of that $200,000 could also go on treats every now and then. Another reader comments that the couple should “enjoy spending all the money they’ve worked for. Let the kids and grandkids sort their own finances! Travel business class… the kids sure will.”

On the possibility of using a reverse mortgage, I mentioned that last week. It’s a good alternative, but it wouldn’t free up as much money as selling would.

Another suggested alternative from a reader: “I’ve recently moved into a retirement village, with fixed fees forever, and would thoroughly recommend that option. No more cares about insurance, electricity, rates and water bills going up all the time.”

It’s a thought, but comes with its own complications. I would recommend lots of research, starting online, before taking that step.

AOf course we don’t want the couple’s income to run out after ten years. But you’re overlooking a few of important points:

• The returns they would earn on the money in the meantime.

The couple wrote of putting their house proceeds in a “mix of investment and on-call”. Let’s assume they would keep money to be spent in 10 or more years in higher-risk investments, money for three to ten years in medium risk, and shorter-term money in cash.

We would expect the middle and longer-term money to bring in considerable returns over the years.

• Inflation isn’t a big worry. That’s because retired people usually spend less and less as they get older, as reported by the NZ Society of Actuaries.

It’s true that the purchases you mention will almost certainly become more expensive. But spending on clothing, transport, recreation and culture in particular tend to decrease as we age, according to data from Stats NZ’s Household Expenditure Survey.

This means that, unless inflation becomes unusually high, most retirees don’t need to worry about inflation. As time goes by, prices rise, but they buy less.

An exception to this is rent, which will surely increase over the years. But the couple plan to use their NZ Super to cover that and, as I said last week, that rises by more than inflation.

• Do they need $50,000 a year? Given that their rent is taken care of, and they’ll pay no rates or other homeowner expenses, they could probably do fine spending less than that. After all, if they don’t sell their home, they’ll have to manage on their current “limited savings”, which would mean considerably less.

So, if they go ahead and sell the house, how much should they spend, without having their money run out before they do?

If you retire at 65, a rough rule of thumb is: For every $100,000 of savings you have, you can spend $100 a week and your money will probably last until you die. So with $500,000, you can spend $500 a week, or $26,000 a year.

But note that this couple are not 65 but in their early seventies. The money doesn’t need to last as long, and that makes quite a difference.

The NZ Society of Actuaries has published some other rules of thumb to suit people in different situations. Their report is here. It’s 14 pages of fairly easy reading.

One rule that might suit our couple is called the Fixed Date Rule. You set a future date when your money will run out. Then, “each year take out the current value of your retirement fund divided by the number of years left to that date.”

Let’s say the couple are 72, and want their money to last until they are 85, which is 13 years. What about after that? By the mid eighties, many people report that spending decreases a lot. And if the couple need to, they can use some of the $200,000 set aside for the grandchildren — as discussed above.

So in the first year we divide $500,000 by 13, and come up with around $38,460 — or $740 a week — to spend.

In subsequent years, their capital is reduced by what they’ve spent, but boosted by the returns earned. And the next year’s total will be divided by 12 not 13, and the following year by 11 and so on.

I’ve worked through a couple of feasible scenarios and it seems likely they will continue to have around the same $38,000-odd to spend each year. It’s not big money, but many retired people — including probably our couple if they don’t sell their home — get by on considerably less.

AThis type of accommodation is referred to as “build-to-rent”. An online search suggests major players include Resido, Simplicity Living and New Ground Living, but I’m not necessarily recommending them, as I don’t know enough about them. There’s plenty of info if you go online.

ALast week’s reader didn’t name the deposit taker offering that rate. It wasn’t relevant to the Q&A, which was about how safe it is to invest in finance companies that are covered by the new Depositor Compensation Scheme.

Nor was the interest rate relevant, beyond being attractive. But you’re right. A glance at the list of term deposits on interest.co.nz shows interest rates have fallen since the reader wrote to me.

That’s hardly surprising, given the Reserve Bank reduced its official cash rate from 3% to 2.5% in the meantime.

Sorry to disappoint you. However, at the time of writing you can still get 4.35% on a five-year deposit covered by the DCS — not too far below 4.6%.

By the way, I know you were being flippant, but if you were really planning to borrow to invest, I would make one more point. Doing that would gain you nothing unless your borrowing rate is lower than the interest you receive. Good luck with that!