News

Flexible pensions proposal risks

Tuesday 27th of August 2013

As part of its confidence and supply agreement with the United Future party, the National Government has issued a discussion document looking at the option of flexible superannuation.

The proposal would mean that people could choose when they wanted to take their super.  If they wanted the pension earlier than 65, they would get a reduced rate. Later, they would get a higher rate.

Finance Minister Bill English said the Government was testing the public appetite for more flexibility.

“The discussion document is deliberately set at a high level and more detailed policy work would be required should the proposal be progressed.”

Institute of Financial Advisers president Nigel Tate said the move would be risky.  “If you defer the pension with a view to receiving a higher amount later on, and you kick the bucket early, you miss out. Or if the Government changes, there are issues around that.”

But he said advisers should discuss with clients the possibility that they might not get the pension at 65. “It’s an opportunity for advisers to guide clients and acknowledge eligibility issues and encourage people who are planning for their retirements not to assume they are going to get a pension until they are 67.”

He said that would amount to clients needing an extra $25,000 over two years, which they could call on if they still wanted to stop work at 65. “There’s plenty of time to plan for it but if people do what people usually do, which is put things off, they could fall into a trap.”

Comments (2)
Steve Wright
I think the idea has lots of merit. Sorry Nigel but I think worrying about missing out because you die too soon is completely the wrong focus. The real risk, especially for reasonably healthy people is living longer. Having sufficient income in retirement to make that long time reasonably pleasant is much more important, and deferring to get a higher pension may well work for many.
0 0
11 years ago

Mike Naylor
There are a lot of interesting issues which may arise: (i) Will the payment adjustment be actuarially fair, (i.e.; those going early or late get the same on a PV basis by their assumed age of death). If so then there is no gain on average to anyone. However I can see some element of subsidy being built in by politicians for those going early, otherwise the weekly amount might be quite low. Even if actuarially fair those clients who have bad genetics or who drink/smoke and thus expect to die early should take it early. Similarly those who expect to live long (esp women) should delay. (ii) If the discount rate is low, say the govt bond rate, then there is no gain to delaying - as the early payments can be invested at a higher rate and drawn upon when you actually retire. (iii) How it fits in with tax, as delaying while you work could cut your marginal tax. It would certainly make retirement discussions interesting for advisers.
0 0
11 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.