Does National’s new Kiwisaver policy sound familiar? | The Spinoff (thespinoff.co.nz)

submitted 4 months ago by nsh to c/politics

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The increased contributions would only make sense if they closed the loophole they introduced themselves regarding total remuneration. Copying someone else’s policy from a decade ago while never acknowledging their own mistake. I guess nothing new here. :)

The successive governments could’ve prioritised narrowing the wealth gap and lowering the cost of living first. Then a policy like this would’ve made a much greater impact. So, while I think making KiwiSaver compulsory is a good idea, it’s a reminder of a lost opportunity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] BaconWrappedEnigma 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I mean, if we're going back in history, it's relevant to point out: Labour passed "New Zealand Superannuation Act" in 1974 with a compulsory combined rate of 8 percent of earnings. If we had this since then we'd be quite a rich country and we wouldn't be worried about super at all.

Muldoon’s National Party campaigned on undoing it because it was socialist or communist; and he undid it and then instead rolled out the pay-as-you-go system that we have now which is guaranteed to fall over right about when I'll be ready to retire, based on numbers from Stats NZ.

this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026

6 points (87.5% liked)

NZ Politics

917 readers

18 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other LemmyNZ communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Dave

RaoulDuke