Q: You recently wrote about the "unfairness" of total employment cost (TEC), under which employees effectively pay their own employer contributions to KiwiSaver, and also of the need for KiwiSaver not to disadvantage various groups (for example, the unwaged).

I turn 65 in two months and at that time will have a short-term (Government) assignment for which I will be ineligible for KiwiSaver.

I have saved the minimum annual contribution to maximise the Government and employer contributions since joining in September 2007, shortly after the scheme's inception. As I was mostly self-employed, the inputs for the most part were only my own.

In this time, in a high-growth fund, I have accumulated $45,000. This is estimated to give me $38 a week until the age of 90. I do have other savings (hence I opted for the higher-risk fund).

Given that older people such as myself have not been in the scheme for long, would it not be fairer for the Government and employer contributions to continue for those still wanting to opt in?

A: I can see an argument for continuing compulsory employer contributions to KiwiSaver beyond 65. Lots of employers — one estimate is 80 per cent — contribute anyway.
But I can think of two good arguments


Uncertain future


Drip, drip, drip ...

Monthly or weekly?

Too many homes ...

... but not any more