• Skip to content
  • Skip to navigation
Global site
  • Global site
Grant Thorton Logo

Grant Thornton Logo Grant Thornton logo

  • Meet our people
  • Insights
  • Services
  • Industries
  • Careers
  • Locations
  • Business advisory services
  • Financial advisory services
  • Tax
  • Audit
  • Operational advisory
Business advisory services Home
  • NZTE support for businesses impacted by COVID-19
Financial advisory services Home
  • Asia Services Group
  • Business valuations
  • Capital markets
  • Complex and international services
  • Corporate insolvency
  • Debt advisory
  • Expert witness
  • Financial models
  • Forensic and investigation services
  • Independent business review
  • IT forensics
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Raising finance
  • Relationship property services
  • Restructuring and turnaround
  • Transaction advisory
Tax Home
  • Corporate tax
  • Employment tax
  • Global mobility services
  • GST
  • International tax
  • Research and Development
  • Tax compliance
  • Transfer pricing
Audit Home
  • Audit methodology
  • Audit technology
  • Financial reporting advisory
Operational advisory Home
  • Business architecture
  • Internal audit
  • IT advisory
  • IT privacy and security
  • PCI DSS
  • Process improvement
  • Procurement/supply chain
  • Project assurance
  • Risk management
  • Robotic process automation (RPA)
  • Energy and resources
  • Financial services
  • Food and beverage
  • Health and aged care
  • Media and entertainment
  • Not for profit
  • Professional services
  • Public sector
  • Real estate and construction
  1. Grant Thornton New Zealand
  2. Press releases
  3. 2016
  4. NEST egg tax: Budget 2016 - change taxing of super schemes

NEST egg tax: Budget 2016 - change taxing of super schemes

13 May 2016
  • 2016

The introduction and success of KiwiSaver has undoubtedly helped New Zealanders save more effectively, but it won’t be enough to ensure that participants in the scheme will be comfortable when they retire. People are living for longer and the status quo isn’t going to cut it for future generations.

Many Kiwis are currently relying heavily on the value of their home (often their only key asset) and NZ Super to fund their retirement. The rapid rise in residential property values means that the ideal of owning a home is becoming a mere fantasy for many. Home ownership is at its lowest in 50 years at just under 65%, and it’s expected to decline further. 

To ensure future generations have sufficient investments to fund their retirement lifestyle, bold decisions are required in this year’s budget and beyond.

A key area that deserves some serious attention is making employee contributions and investment income accrued within the fund exempt from tax.  

This isn’t outrageous in any sense of the word when you look at other countries’ approaches to superannuation. Many countries offer tax incentives for retirement savings by exempting contributions, exempting investment income generated and taxing future payments – otherwise known as EET.  It encourages active saving while significantly increasing an individual’s nest egg.

New Zealand, on the other hand, opts for a TTE approach. Contributions are taxed on the way in and investment income is taxed as it is earned, while subsequent payments are exempt from further tax. To put the impact of these two regimes into context, consider the following: you invest $100 in a retirement fund for 50 years at 6% nominal return with a marginal rate of say, 30%. If tax doesn’t accrue on the investment income and is only applied on withdrawal, the after tax result is $1,319. However, under New Zealand’s current system, investment income is taxed as it is derived, but not on withdrawal; which reduces the amount to $782. This significant drop in ROI highlights the punitive nature of our current system.

Given the adverse tax outcome that the TTE approach delivers, there is no real surprise that those who have funds often invest them in the housing market. The generous tax treatment of housing relative to other investments compounds the housing problem and promotes investment in less productive areas of the economy.

Clearly an EET tax system would provide massive benefits for individuals. It would create greater wealth and less reliance on the state for assistance in later life. An increase in savings better employed would also lead to wider economic benefits such as greater access to capital, job creation and greater productivity, which in turn would reduce our reliance on overseas borrowing.

Of course there’s an immediate cost as any decrease in taxes will reduce the revenue intake for the Government. It is unlikely that this cost could be replaced without generating the revenue from somewhere else. 

There is no doubt that taxes distort decision making – so why not modify the tax system to encourage investment into more productive areas?

Further enquiries, please contact:

Dan Lowe
Associate, Tax
Grant Thornton New Zealand
T +64 (0)9 308 2531
E dan.lowe@nz.gt.com

  • Follow us on Instagram
  • LinkedIn icon
  • Twitter icon
  • Facebook icon
CONNECTclose
  • Contact us
  • Make an enquiry/submit an RFP
  • Meet our people
  • Careers
  • Alumni
  • Locations
ABOUTclose
  • About Grant Thornton
  • Insights
  • Press
LEGALclose
  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Sitemap

© 2021 Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL) - All rights reserved. "Grant Thornton” refers to the brand under which the Grant Thornton member firms provide assurance, tax and advisory services to their clients and/or refers to one or more member firms, as the context requires. GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. GTIL and each member firm is a separate legal entity. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL does not provide services to clients. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are not liable for one another’s acts or omissions.

    • EN