Andrea Yes you are right there is a couple basis in the welfare system. And it is out of date by at least 50 years!!! BUT since 1977 we have never treated retired couples like they were on a welfare benefit. NZS is an individual entitlement albeit it a lower rate for those who are married as opposed to single sharing. (Ananachronsitic too of coourse ). BUT a person get its regardless of their partners income– except for the 500 who have married t he wrong person
I am very grumpy and cranky about this-the silence from politicians is deafening

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKNHfECZEaU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct8MZY9ZtJY

But I am to be destroyed as a drinker and dissenter.

If you’ve paid tax on your job – why aren’t you entitled to income support as a single person? That’s how you’ve been taxed.

This whole marriage/partners thing is way out of date – by at least fifty years.

And, while I’m on a rant – when are we getting rid of special super for MPs? Let them fund their own out of their OTT pay – like the rest of us do. Or live below the poverty level on the ‘Govt super’.

Plus – no pay rises for the term of the government. Or back pay.

(stomps off, grumbling sotto voce…)

Countries with an existing pension scheme could pay into the international pension scheme, and countries without one could establish entitlement for their people by paying into it. Perhaps, for an agreed period of time, countries whose people have been negatively affected by colonization and climate change could pay less, and countries that have benefited from colonization and carbon emissions could pay more?

If this worked, perhaps an international UBI could work the same way, funded by a similar international treaty body handling the taxation of multinational corporations?

By my guesstimating Kiwi Bank should be able to take on a cash crises. Not sure about the other big 4 banks because they’ve already pulled out of small town NZ. Investors will also be disappointed Fynlason failed to get Ngapuhi across the settlement line.

On the topic of “double dipping”, one from Dipton, in the South, comes to mind, he is now PM, I lately heard, hard to believe that:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b3wjQe_RGcIJ:www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm%3Fc_id%3D466%26objectid%3D10599678+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

“The time has come for Bill “Double Dipton” English to end the charade.

It has been apparent for a while that it is no longer tenable for him to stipulate his primary place of residence as being in his Clutha-Southland electorate when his real home has long been in Wellington.

It is not just a matter of putting things right to satisfy the Cabinet Manual’s requirement that ministers “behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards”.

His highly questionable claim to be an out-of-Wellington MP – a status which made him eligible for an accommodation allowance while in Opposition and which entitles him to taxpayer-funded ministerial accommodation now he is in Government – has become unsustainable in purely political terms.

Yesterday’s announcement by the Office of the Auditor-General that it is making preliminary inquiries before determining whether to investigate whether English has satisfied the criteria of being an out-of-Wellington MP ups the ante considerably.

The possibility of the watchdog of public spending investigating the Minister of Finance does not bear thinking about – at least from National’s point of view.

English needs to forestall any investigation by removing the grounds for its taking place. English’s inclination will be to tough things out.”

Comment:

Yes, it is no longer found on the NZ Herald webpage, but still in the web’s cache, thank goodness.

That was one of the better ones Mr Armstrong wrote in 2009.

There is NO equality in New Zealand
In a recent email from MSD I was informed that Section 70 direct deduction policy applies to pensions that falls under the following:
a) be administered by or on behalf of the Government of that country;
b) form part of a program providing benefits, pensions, or periodical allowances for any of the contingencies for which benefits, pensions, or allowances may be paid under this Act, or under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 or the Veterans’ Support Act 2014;
c) and not be a Government occupational pension.

As a Government occupational pension is a tier two pension exactly the same as a UK pension then the question must be asked why is one NOT subject to direct deduction policy and the other is?
On further enquiry I was also informed that there is no separate legislation covering tier two pensions so how can Section 70 direct deduction be applied where no legislation/law is in place to cover it.
Immigrants from all over the world including many New Zealanders who have worked overseas are having their tier two employer/employee funded pensions stolen by a Government who are using questionable policies to protect their own staff pensions at the expense of others.
They tell us we would be disadvantaging ordinary Kiwis and be “double dipping” if we were allowed to have two pensions despite having funded them ourselves.
Given the above facts immigrants are the ones being disadvantaged not the ordinary Kiwis. It is time Government came clean and stopped hiding the truth about how they steal pensions from immigrants living New Zealand.
End.

Paul Rea
Chairperson NZSP