More than 9000 people aged over 65 earn more than $200,000 a year, and another 33,000 earn between $100,000 and $200,000 – and the Retirement Commissioner says it’s fair to question whether they should be able to claim NZ Super as well.
The data comes from the 2023 Census. The number earning between $150,000 and $200,000 has decreased from 2018 but the number earning between $100,000 and $150,000 has lifted by 10,000.
The Census also showed that the number of people over 65 still in the workforce had increased.
Just over 24 per cent of people aged over 65 were in work, up from 22.1 per cent in 2013. The biggest increase was among people aged 70 to 74.
Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson is opposed to putting up the age of eligibility for NZ Super.
She said if there were questions about the cost or fairness of the scheme, they needed to be addressed with a package of measures.
“Then you absolutely have to look at means testing again. It’s really unpopular but it would be improper if we didn’t look at all the sensible options if the goal is to reduce the cost to the state.”
She said the problem to be solved needed to be defined and then the possible solutions assessed.
“Means testing is absolutely one of those options but politicians run away from it because it’s got a pretty ugly history and it does make it a more complex system. There’s no doubt about it, people will start arranging their affairs and start avoiding tax and all that kind of stuff.
“But if you boil it down to a very simple thing – is it right that someone earning over $180,000 or $200,000 – I think $180,000 is probably about the mark because that’s when the tax rates go up – is it right that people out there earning over $180,000 can also acquire Super, it’s an extremely good question.”
She said it would be easy to capture the earnings of people being paid a salary while receiving NZ Super but much harder to assess other income.
“It’s both complicated and it’s easy. The easiest thing is to leave well alone. The next easiest thing is to just put the age up, but that is too easy because there is harm attached to that… So that’s what I’m talking about when I say please, could we have a package if we do any system change at all and can we please stop talking about this as single issue?”
She said there should be a cross-party political conversation to determine a path forward.
University of Auckland associate professor Susan St John earlier outlined a plan to treat NZ Super as a tax-free basic income grant and put recipients on a higher tax rate.
She said it would be a better option than the age of eligibility or the amount paid.
It would create a situation where there was a break-even point beyond which people would be better off, on a net basis, not claiming NZ Super and instead being taxed at standard rates.
She said the tax scales she had modelled were less harsh than the abatement that applied to people receiving a benefit.
The Government has introduced parental income tests for young people receiving the Jobseeker benefit and will restrict access to the member tax credit in KiwiSaver to those who earn more than $180,000.
St John said the reason that similar moves weren’t made on NZ Super might reflect historical attitudes towards the “deserving and undeserving”.
She said NZ Super was effectively income-tested through the tax system because people who were earning other income would pay higher rates of tax.
“Just far less draconian than the clawbacks for children with Working for Families and adults in the benefit system.”
Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub said means and income testing in Australia meant that only about 60 per cent of the population would qualify for the pension. If that were true in New Zealand, it could save about $9b a year.
There are 74,850 people aged 30 to 64 earning more than $200,000.
The median income for people aged over 65 is $26,600.
-RNZ



14 comments
Worked for it
Posted on 28-06-2025 16:38 | By Gigilo
I you qualify for super payment you should get it. More to the point super payments should not be taxed.
A warning
Posted on 28-06-2025 19:14 | By Duegatti
Screw around with super at your peril pollies.
People have paid high taxes all their lives to live in this stupidly expensive country.
Try to take their super and you will never govern again.
We oldies vote, and remember.We didn't support so many peole who made benefits a lifestyle to be denied when our turn comes to get something back.
Cut waste first, that'll save more than 9 billion.
Persecution
Posted on 29-06-2025 07:55 | By Graize
Once again hitting those who work, have worked and have paid their taxes and in most cases more than their fair share. It seems as though it's thought that that folks who earn a bit extra get for nothing, not for going the extra mile and possibly want to have a better life in retirement
Waste of time...
Posted on 29-06-2025 08:28 | By fair game
Waste of time and money even thinking about changing this to means tested, as rightly pointed out, the money will be redirected to family members / property / shares etc. I know I would if I was ever in the position where I earned over $180K if I was over 65. A good lawyer would sort it out.
Pensioners.
Posted on 29-06-2025 11:13 | By Shirley Geros
OMG I'm on a pension and I would love to have extra $50000 coming in each year on top of it .
Raise the age
Posted on 29-06-2025 13:11 | By BJWD
Gradually Increase the Retirement Age
How it saves money: Delaying the age at which people become eligible for NZ Super reduces the number of years the government pays per person.
Example: Increasing the age by 2 years (from 65 to 67) over a decade.
Pros: Aligns with longer life expectancy and international trends.
Cons: May be unpopular and could disproportionately affect manual laborers and low-income workers.
Residency Requirements
Posted on 29-06-2025 13:15 | By BJWD
How it saves money: Raise the minimum number of years a person must live in NZ before being eligible.
Current rule: 10 years after age 20, with 5 years after age 50.
Change: Extend to, say, 20 or 25 years total.
Pros: Reduces access for recent migrants or those who spent much of their lives overseas.
Cons: May raise equity and fairness concerns.
The Master
Posted on 29-06-2025 15:07 | By Ian Stevenson
The people who are still working and earn good money, likely have paid a lot of tax over their working life. A lot more than many/most others in fact.
Based on tax paid they have more right than many others to claim Super when 65.
There are arguments the other way of course.
The Master
Posted on 29-06-2025 15:12 | By Ian Stevenson
The number of people getting to 65 and so entitled then to Super (working or not) is the real issue.
Decades ago when the average lifespan was a lot lower (as recall below super age?) then a lot less % of people were entitled. Now, when the average ago of death is 78-80+ years old, most citizens now make it to Super so the taxpayer has a huge financial burden as a result as the bill mushrooms as the baby boomers get to 65 years old.
This was recognised by introducing Kiwisaver, but currently kiwisaver is grossly inadequate for the vast majority of citizens, it is non existent and or minimal for a retiree instead of Super.
Knock it Off
Posted on 29-06-2025 15:58 | By Tunks
Those people earning $200 k weren't always making that sort of coin. Their entire life was probably spent working their butts off and paying their dues via PAYE They are more than entitled to super. far more entitled than those who have relied upon benefits or dodged the taxman their entire lives. Savings are taxed, their income is highly taxed and their super is taxed at a higher rate also, so they continue to contribute more than most. Stop looking for easy targets and address where the real wastage is.
The Master
Posted on 29-06-2025 16:24 | By Ian Stevenson
There is no option here, a look to change Super eligibility as to many @65+, the taxpayer cost is to much and will get worse.
To remedy that: -
1 The 65 to 67 change needs to be now
2 Kiwisaver needs to expand a-lot, average savings are way to low for most
3 Super ex Government should start at say 70-75?(like Germany)
4 If retiring sooner then accessing Kiwisaver should be allowed @>65 then super follows later.
5 If there are health issues etc then super or a transition Super should be available on a "need-to" basis. It also needs to be acknowledged that some can not work onwards in some job.
6 Means-testing on working full time is reasonable.
Unaffordable Super for NZ-Taxpayers signals tax was low, spending to high, both?
It's simple
Posted on 30-06-2025 13:48 | By morepork
[DISCLAIMER: I am not someone in a high income bracket who gets Superannuation; I am a perfect example of a retired elderly man, living on the pension.]
A fundamentally simple question: If someone has paid tax when they worked, should they not be allowed Super when they retire?
Their asset base is irrelevant, within this scope. And so is any means test. (For myself, I would easily pass any such test...)
Perhaps the "super rich", who definitely don't NEED the Super, might make an honourable gesture and pass it to charity, (or simply forgo elegibility), but they shouldn't HAVE to do that.
With an aging population, the Superannuation load will increase. But so is the GDP of the nation. (If we had better efficiency and less profligacy in government, there would be no problem.)
ALL our people are within our capability to care for; we simply need the will.
@Ian Stevenson
Posted on 01-07-2025 14:12 | By morepork
Ian, I think all your posts in this thread are good and have no real disagreement EXCEPT one:
"There is no option here, ..."
The measures you outlined to correct this all seem fair and reasonable, but the stated lack of option I'm not so sure about.
It implies that we can't afford to pay what we need to, and I'm not convinced of that.
Just to get a feel for it, I calculated how much it would cost us if EVERY single person (5,000,000) received Superannuation ($24,000 pa)... $120 BILLION. We can see that this is grossly overcalculated and the actual figure will be less than that... $21.5 Billion is the government estimate.
Given that our GDP is approaching $300 BILLION, even if we increase the official estimate by 50% to $30 billion, it represents 10% of the total money generated in one year.
It's affordable.
Why is Superannuation frightening for the Government?
Posted on 01-07-2025 14:24 | By morepork
In another post in this thread I showed that Super is about 10% of GDP.
Most reasonable people would agree that 10% of funds could be well spent on something we have a moral duty to provide.
Our elderly have worked and paid taxes for years, and the Government has had the use of those BILLIONS for decades.
It is a fair argument that people who really don't NEED a pension shouldn't get a slice of this pie, but it is just that: an argument, NOT a foregone conclusion.
There should be no hesitation, or reluctance, in paying the people who DO need it, a livable pension.
So why is there?
10% is reasonable. But the fact is that Governments have not valued the Taxes paid, or made proper provision for the payout to oldies.
Instead, they waste money (probably much more than 10%) on themselves...
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.