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
Newsroom
10 hours ago
- Newsroom
Seymour's ‘light up' message alarms tobacco researchers
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour's comments to a London audience calling smokers 'fiscal heroes' – and declaring people should 'light up' to save their government's balance sheet – are reprehensible and make light of addiction, tobacco researchers say. Seymour largely stands by his remarks, arguing smokers are a net economic positive through tobacco tax and reduced superannuation from early deaths – but has conceded he was wrong to describe as 'quite evil' the Labour government's plan to create a smokefree generation. Early in its term, the coalition Government sparked controversy by repealing a law that would have banned the sale of tobacco to anyone born after January 1, 2009 and dramatically reduced both the number of outlets able to sell tobacco and the nicotine levels in cigarettes. Seymour spoke about the decision following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank based in London, during a visit to the UK this month. Asked about the smokefree generation concept, which has been taken up by the British government, Seymour said the New Zealand policy had been 'quite evil, in a way' and described smokers as 'fiscal heroes'. 'If you want to save your country's balance sheet, light up, because … lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you're a hero,' he said to laughter from the audience. Seymour told Newsroom his remarks were based on arguments he made before about the role of the Government when it came to smoking. 'I'm not seriously suggesting that we should encourage people to smoke to save the Government money. It's clearly an absurd statement, but you do have to have a bit of a sense of humour in this life, otherwise it would be too dull.' The state should make sure the public was aware of the dangers of smoking, while stopping smokers from doing harm to others (such as through second-hand smoke) and ensuring they did not impose financial costs on others. 'As far as I can tell, that condition is well and truly satisfied: I mean, the Government gets $2 billion of tax revenue from about, what is it now, 8 percent of the population?' (The Customs Service collected $1.5b in tobacco excise and equivalent duties in 2023/24, while that year's NZ Health Survey reported a daily smoking rate of 6.9 percent.) Seymour said it was 'just a sad fact' that smokers were also likely to die younger, reducing the amount of superannuation they collected, while he was unconvinced their healthcare costs would be markedly higher than those who died of other illnesses. 'If anything, smokers are probably saving other citizens money.' However, he backtracked on his suggestion the last Government's smokefree generation plans were 'quite evil', saying: 'I'm not sure that was the right word, on reflection. 'I certainly think the idea that, in 30 years' time, someone's going to have to prove that they're 49 rather than 47 does seem draconian – it seems almost a bit of an Orwellian situation.' While the Adam Smith Institute's event page billed Seymour as the Deputy Prime Minister, he said his speech was delivered in a private capacity rather than on behalf of the Government, while he had not used taxpayer money for his travel (he also confirmed the Institute did not cover any of his costs). Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says the last Labour government's smokefree policy was fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds. Photo: Marc Daalder Labour Party health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall told Newsroom the minister's remarks showed the Government had the wrong priorities when it came to its smokefree policy. 'They are prioritising balancing the books on the misery done to smokers due to the harms of tobacco.' Verrall said there was clear evidence of tobacco's cost to the health system, and the last government's smokefree generation policy had been 'fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds'. 'This is an addictive product: it is unique in that it kills half the people who use it. It's not like the more nuanced debates we have about … social media for kids.' University of Otago associate professor Andrew Waa told Newsroom Seymour's 'perverse' arguments were further evidence of the Government placing tobacco tax revenue over other concerns. 'It's literally blood money: it's money that the Government taxes on a deadly product, and yet they're still treating it as a profit margin for them.' Waa said the minister's comments ignored the social costs of tobacco, and would only help an industry 'intent on exploiting addiction at whatever cost'. 'I don't know if it's naive, or if it's [his] ideology that it's all personal choice – there's no choice when it comes to smoking some of these things. 'There's a reason why certain communities are more likely to smoke, because they get tobacco products shoved in their face all the time; by the time they decide to think that they don't wanna use the stuff, it's too late.' Janet Hoek, the co-director of tobacco control research partnership ASPIRE Aotearoa, told Newsroom that the comments were 'really ridiculous and reprehensible'. 'It just seems incredibly disappointing that Mr Seymour apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that addiction, and early and often painful death, are a good way to generate government revenue.' Hoek said the environmental and productivity costs associated with smoking also needed to be taken into account, as did the social harm done to communities when their loved ones died prematurely. While some politicians dismissed public health experts as 'muppets … living in ivory towers', the suggestion that smokers were making an informed choice was itself out of touch with reality.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Former New Zealand PM Helen Clark Blames Cook Islands For Creating A Crisis
Article – RNZ Helen Clark says the Cook Islands government entered into a strategic partnership with a major power nation – China – without consulting New Zealand. Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific Presenter/Producer Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark believes the Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China. The New Zealand government has paused more than $18 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands after the latter failed to provide satisfactory answers to Aotearoa's questions about its partnership agreement with Beijing. The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence. The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Winston Peters said had not been honoured. Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown both have a difference of opinion on the level of consultation required between the two nations on such matters. 'There is no way that the 2001 declaration envisaged that Cook Islands would enter into a strategic partnership with a great power behind New Zealand's back,' Clark told RNZ Pacific on Thursday. Clark was a signatory of the 2001 agreement with the Cook Islands as New Zealand prime minister at the time. 'It is the Cook Islands government's actions which have created this crisis,' she said. 'The urgent need now is for face-to-face dialogue at a high level to mend the NZ-CI relationship.' Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has downplayed the pause in funding to the Cook Islands during his second day of his trip to China. Brown told parliament on Thursday (Wednesday, Cook Islands time) that his government knew the funding cut was coming. He also suggested a double standard, pointing out that New Zealand has entered also deals with China that the Cook Islands was not 'privy to or being consulted on'. A Pacific law expert says that, while New Zealand has every right to withhold its aid to the Cook Islands, the way it is going about it will not endear it to Pacific nations. Auckland University of Technology (AUT) senior law lecturer and a former Pacific Islands Forum advisor Sione Tekiteki told RNZ Pacific that for Aotearoa to keep highlighting that it is 'a Pacific country and yet posture like the United States gives mixed messages'. 'Obviously, Pacific nations in true Pacific fashion will not say much, but they are indeed thinking it,' Tekiteki said. Since day dot there has been a misunderstanding on what the 2001 agreement legally required New Zealand and Cook Islands to consult on, and the word consultation has become somewhat of a sticking point. The latest statement from the Cook Islands government confirms it is still a discrepancy both sides want to hash out. 'There has been a breakdown and difference in the interpretation of the consultation requirements committed to by the two governments in the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration,' the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Immigration (MFAI) said. 'An issue that the Cook Islands is determined to address as a matter of urgency'. Tekiteki said that, unlike a treaty, the 2001 declaration was not 'legally binding' per se but serves more to express the intentions, principles and commitments of the parties to work together in 'recognition of the close traditional, cultural and social ties that have existed between the two countries for many hundreds of years'. He said the declaration made it explicitly clear that Cook Islands had full conduct of its foreign affairs, capacity to enter treaties and international agreements in its own right and full competence of its defence and security. However, he added that there was a commitment of the parties to 'consult regularly'. This, for Clark, the New Zealand leader who signed the all-important agreement more than two decades ago, this is where Brown misstepped. Clark previously labelled the Cook Islands-China deal 'clandestine' which has 'damaged' its relationship with New Zealand. RNZ Pacific contacted the Cook Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment but was advised by the MFAI secretary that they are not currently accommodating interviews.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Tonga's Health System Hit By Cyberattack
A team of Australian cyber experts flew to Tonga this week after the country's National Health Information System was breached, leading to a demand for payment from the hackers. Talanoa O Tonga reports the Health Minister Dr Ana Akauola saying the system has been shut down, and staff are handling data manually. Dr Akauola said that hackers encrypted the system and demanded payment, but she has assured MPs "the hackers won't damage the information" on the system. This system was introduced in 2019 with Asian Development Bank (ADB) support to digitise Tonga's health records before going "live" in 2021. Police Minister Paula Piukala was critical of past governments for ignoring warnings that Tonga's digital infrastructure is not fully prepared for these threats. Journalist Sifa Pomana said the hackers are demanding millions of dollars, according to Tonga Police. Residents are being urged to bring essential records to the hospital to help with manual record-keeping.
