I can see the case for this, but my view is means testing super itself is the wrong way to go about addressing this.
You create a whole bureaucracy around applying means testing and a cottage industry of wealthy people avoiding it through trusts and so on.
Then when it becomes means tested it becomes a target to slash and burn politicians, just like all the other benefits. The fact it’s universal is the only reason it’s survived in the relatively good shape it’s in, because so many have a stake in it.
Imo it’d be far better to claw it back by taxing wealth, property and high incomes.
We (rather the government) seem to spend an incredible amount on making sure “solo mum of three” doesn’t get a dollar more than she’s owed just in case she might be scamming us or worse spending it on something I disapprove of while cheerfully firing superannuation at old people with reckless abandon.
There’s a particularly disgusting (IMHO) double standard here that no politician dares touch.
If super is no longer enough money then perhaps the recipients need budgeting help, like we condescendingly tell “solo mum of three”.
I’m not saying we can’t, I’m just saying I think it’s a bad idea that undermines the scheme as a whole. Better to address the issue through the tax system.
Our means tested benefits are dogshit compared to super.
It’s actually a huge amount of staff effort to means test benefits, and it’s definitely not without issue.
It would probably involve a substantial increase to the number of WINZ employees needed. Add to this that pensioners are less computer literate on average, and you probably need to double the size of the contact centre.
Thats not even taking into account the economic cost of wasting people’s time and energy forcing them to attend “work seeking” seminars etc. When some people are forced to forgo doing some part time work they might be able to do instead, or avoid doing some small amount of work they might be able to manage only on a temporary basis for fear they might loose thier benefit.
I can see the case for this, but my view is means testing super itself is the wrong way to go about addressing this.
You create a whole bureaucracy around applying means testing and a cottage industry of wealthy people avoiding it through trusts and so on.
Then when it becomes means tested it becomes a target to slash and burn politicians, just like all the other benefits. The fact it’s universal is the only reason it’s survived in the relatively good shape it’s in, because so many have a stake in it.
Imo it’d be far better to claw it back by taxing wealth, property and high incomes.
What’s hard about it? If you’re paying PAYE on a $400k job you don’t get super.
We can means test every other benefit without issue.
We (rather the government) seem to spend an incredible amount on making sure “solo mum of three” doesn’t get a dollar more than she’s owed just in case she might be scamming us or worse spending it on something I disapprove of while cheerfully firing superannuation at old people with reckless abandon.
There’s a particularly disgusting (IMHO) double standard here that no politician dares touch.
If super is no longer enough money then perhaps the recipients need budgeting help, like we condescendingly tell “solo mum of three”.
I’m not saying we can’t, I’m just saying I think it’s a bad idea that undermines the scheme as a whole. Better to address the issue through the tax system.
Our means tested benefits are dogshit compared to super.
It’s actually a huge amount of staff effort to means test benefits, and it’s definitely not without issue.
It would probably involve a substantial increase to the number of WINZ employees needed. Add to this that pensioners are less computer literate on average, and you probably need to double the size of the contact centre.
Can we though…?
I wonder how much we spend on the bureaucracy of means testing vs how much it would cost to just have UBI instead…
Haha I’m with you, the country if full of people saying “put up the age to qualify for super”, and I’m here saying “no, put it way down!”
I wonder this sometimes.
Even just changing it to a tax year and liaising with IRD would save MSD a lot of money I imagine.
Thats not even taking into account the economic cost of wasting people’s time and energy forcing them to attend “work seeking” seminars etc. When some people are forced to forgo doing some part time work they might be able to do instead, or avoid doing some small amount of work they might be able to manage only on a temporary basis for fear they might loose thier benefit.
They would shuttle their income so as not to be standard payroll.