Do I Have To Pay For My Partner's Care?
RNZ's money correspondent answers your questions. Send your questions to
If one person in a de facto relationship needs permanent medical care, does the Government require the other partner to pay for the care once the unwell patient's funds run out?
The basic answer to your question is that when your partner is being assessed for their ability to pay for their care, your income and assets will usually be taken into account.
If you're referring to medical care in a rest home setting, your assets and personal income affect whether your partner will qualify for a residential care subsidy.
'People who need residential care are required to pay for it themselves, if they can afford to do so. If they cannot afford it, they may be eligible for a residential care subsidy, which Health New Zealand pays directly to the care provider,' said Ministry of Social Development group general manager for client service delivery Graham Allpress.
'MSD's role is to check whether people qualify for this subsidy by performing a 'financial means assessment'.
'To get the subsidy, a person's income and assets must be under a certain amount. If they are in a relationship, the combined income and assets of both parties must be under a certain amount.'
People can qualify for the subsidy if they are 50 to 64, single and without dependent children, or over 65 and meet the income and means test. That means, even if your partner's funds have run out, your assets could still be taken into account.
If only one partner needs care, the couple combined need to have assets of no more than $155,873 not including the family home and car, or $284,636 if you do want the home and car in the assessment.
If it's other types of care that you're thinking of, it could be a good idea to contact Health NZ for a needs assessment.
There are options such as the supported living payment but eligibility for this is assessed on a household income basis, too.
I'm currently a NZ tax resident living in NZ, but previously lived in Australia (over a decade ago) and purchased shares on the ASX that I continue to own and receive dividends for (which I declare as part of my income). If I sold these shares now, worth about $150,000, what taxes would they be subject to? Specifically, would I have to pay a capital gains tax on the increased share value (as I would if I were an Australian tax resident).
This is probably a question for an accountant with expertise in Australian tax.
Based on information available online, it seems that you potentially should have paid tax on the shares in Australia when you stopped being an Australian resident.
Assuming that didn't happen, the Australian Tax Office is likely to be expecting capital gains tax to be paid on them when they are sold.
You aren't likely to have any New Zealand tax obligations.
Tax experts tell me that the authorities have access to a lot of data these days so it's possible that the Australian Tax Office will find out about any share sale and might get in touch with you.
I am 78 years of age and still work part time and also still contribute to my KiwiSaver. Am I eligible for the government contribution?
Sorry, no. While the government said it was going to start making contributions to 16 and 17-year-olds' accounts, it hasn't budged on the upper limit of 65.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
12 hours ago
- RNZ News
KiwiSaver members to get one last chance at $521 government contribution
To qualify for the full amount, members need to have contributed at least $1042 in the 12 months to 30 June. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER The clock is ticking down on KiwiSaver members' last chance to get $521 in their accounts, from the government. It was announced in this year's Budget that the government would halve the member tax credit to a maximum of $260.72, and remove it for anyone earning more than $180,000 a year. That means the current KiwiSaver year, which expires at the end of Monday, is members' last opportunity to get the $521.43 that had previously been offer - and for the highest earners to get it at all. To qualify for the full amount, members need to have contributed at least $1042 in the 12 months to 30 June. The contribution is currently paid at a rate of 50 cents per $1 contributed up to that amount. Anyone who is working full-time and contributing 3 percent of their income to KiwiSaver will probably have contributed enough. But people who have been out of the workforce, or not making contributions to KiwiSaver, may need to check whether they have, and make a lump sum payment if not. Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson previously told RNZ the change would be most keenly felt by lower-income people. She said, for people earning less than $30,000 a year, the member tax credit was expected to add up to 15 percent or 20 percent of their total balance at 65. With the reduction, it would be between 6 and 11 percent. Pie Funds chief executive Ana-Marie Lockyer said even with the changes, the contribution could be expected to grow to $41,000 over the course of a 16-year-old's working life. The contribution is not available to people aged over 65, but from the new KiwiSaver year, will be available to 16 and 17-year-olds. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Never mind the swear words, politicians need to raise debate quality
I don't believe people are genuinely shocked by the language we're all hearing every night on our streaming TV shows. What is shocking is the standard of argument being employed by politicians and parties as they seek to score points with silly populist arguments. On my Facebook and Instagram feeds, the Labour Party has been trying to tell me that the Government is to blame for soaring butter prices. It has posted a chart of butter prices pointing out that they have doubled since the National-led coalition came to power. That's annoyed me on a number of levels. Despite the fact it seems to enrage many Kiwis, soaring dairy prices are clearly a net gain for the economy. We sell a lot more internationally than we consume locally and the current dairy price spike is expected to bring in an additional $10 billion in export revenue over this year and next. It's exactly what our economy needed. The impact on consumers is overstated. Butter prices have doubled in two years. You used to be able to get a 500g block for about $4.50 now it's about $8.50. That's an extra $4 a week, far less than petrol prices fluctuate on a regular basis. Also, there are numerous butter substitutes and blends that haven't risen nearly that much. I understand why someone on the Labour Party team has tried to milk the dairy price story (sorry for the pun). It is a headline grabber and an easy online meme. I bet the analytics on it look great. But it makes no sense in the real world. The Government has no control over international dairy prices. There are things a government could do to reduce the cost of butter for local consumers. They could subsidise the price with taxpayer money. Or they could impose price controls on farmers and force them to sell a certain amount locally. These would be terrible policies, and there is no chance Labour is about to adopt them. So butter prices would be exactly the same right now if they had won the last election. More broadly, inflation is running rampant like it was throughout 2021 and 2022. It has edged up to 2.5% but remains within the Reserve Bank's 1-3% target band. The same Stats NZ release that included the butter price graph also pointed out that annual rent price increases haven't been below 2.8% since 2011. Of course, much lower inflation isn't all good news. The fact it is underperforming so badly is giving economists confidence that inflation will stay subdued. The economy is struggling to get any momentum and there is no doubt a lot of people are doing it tough. There's no shortage of real issues with this recovery, which the current Government ought to take some responsibility for. Labour could legitimately be attacking the Government on unemployment and job security. There are tens of thousands more people on the Jobseeker benefit now than there were when Labour was in power. I don't mean to single out Labour either. The National Party spent a lot of time in opposition attacking Labour for letting those Jobseeker numbers rise. It also drives me crazy when the Government holds press conferences after the Official Cash Rate announcement to take credit for falling interest rates. Interest rates are falling because inflation is under control and the economy is underperforming. If they go much lower, it will be because things are getting worse, not better. Meanwhile, in the past week, we've had David Seymour running 'victim of the day' social media attacks on opponents of his regulatory standards bill. Seymour says he is being 'playful' and having 'fun' with his line, suggesting opponents are suffering from 'Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome'. Surely if the bill is worth putting before Parliament, then it must have been aimed at delivering some sort of meaningful change to the status quo. Let's have a grown-up debate about what that intended change is. What's frustrating about political debate in 2025 is that politicians are so quick to build 'straw man' arguments because they seem easy to sell as memes and headlines. A 'straw man', for the record, is where you present a weak version or flawed version of your opponent's argument so you can easily dismiss it. It's lazy and doesn't do anything to boost the quality of policy-making in this country. It's probably too much to ask, but wouldn't it be nice if our politicians were confident enough in their view to employ the opposite of a 'straw man' argument? That's called a 'steel-man' argument. It requires you to consciously present the strongest and most charitable version of your opponent's argument. Then you explain why it still doesn't stack up. It requires you to do a bit of homework and think through the logical basis for your argument. I'm pretty sure all the leaders of our political parties are smart enough to do that. But we seem to be following a depressing international trend which sees social media debate reduce everything to simplistic points which appeal to an increasingly tribal political base. New Zealand has a cyclical recovery underway that would have happened, at a greater or lesser pace, regardless of who was in power. Scrapping over that is pointless. We need to be looking ahead to how we lift the economy at a structural level and enable higher levels of cyclical growth. That requires some serious work and will need a higher quality of debate than what we've been seeing this year. This column will take a two-week break as the author is on holiday with his family. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for theNew Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined theHeraldin 2003.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Australia: Less Bang For Your Buck – NSW Budget Is Missing Key Opportunities For Everyone
We've crunched the numbers and can show that the financial cost of discrimination and exclusion is far higher than the costs associated with investing in inclusion. 'Despite repeated calls from people with disability, the NSW Government has failed to deliver a clear and sustained investment in disabled lives in the 2025-26 Budget, the outcomes of which will be felt by all,' said Trinity Ford, President, People with Disability Australia (PWDA). The key messages from PWDA's pre-budget submission are that making NSW more inclusive and accessible offers: Wellbeing benefits for people with disability. Wellbeing benefits for the wider community. Opportunities to save over $12 billion. These key benefits and opportunities have not been considered throughout the Budget. A targeted investment in Foundational Supports was clearly missing—and that's deeply concerning. "The complete omission of any specific funding for Foundational Supports is a serious missed opportunity—and one that Australia can't afford. We are increasingly concerned that this may signal a deliberate move to sideline foundational supports from the Government's agenda. We will be raising this urgently with Minister Washington and will be monitoring the Government's position closely', said Ms Ford. A commitment to accessible housing is also lacking within announcements. Although the Government has committed to improve housing for the people of NSW, PWDA is disappointed the Budget does little to directly address the housing crisis facing people with disability. Currently, 66,698 households are on the NSW social housing waiting list. The government's own data acknowledges that around one-third of these applicants are people with disability. The Government is committing billions to fast-track 465,500 new homes over the next five years through private and mixed development initiatives. However, most of these are not social or accessible housing, and there are no clear guarantees of how people with disability—especially those on low incomes—will benefit. "Making all new homes accessible by mandating the National Construction Code's minimum accessibility standards would not cost the government anything—and it would help more people with disability live independently, instead of relying on social housing', said Ms Ford. Right now, homelessness is costing NSW about $6.5 billion every year. Over 10 years, that adds up to $65 billion. If the Government invested just one-third of that amount—$26 billion over 10 years—it could stop many people from becoming homeless and save almost $4 billion each year. PWDA welcomes the NSW Government's investments toward improving access to support for victim-survivors of violence and trauma. However, there is no mention of how these funds will support people with disability—despite clear evidence people with disability are at significantly higher risk of experiencing violence and need different interventions. 'Funding responses to violence must be inclusive. Without specific measures to address the unique risks and access barriers faced by people with disability, we risk leaving behind the very communities most in need of protection,' said Ms Ford. PWDA is calling on the NSW Government to commit to the inclusion and wellbeing of people with disability. 'Continued discrimination against people with disability, and doing nothing to address it, is expensive. There are clear gaps in the 2025-26 NSW Budget. People with disability are being left out, which will end up costing the Government and taxpayers more in the future,' said Trinity Ford, President of PWDA.
