We'd love to hear more of your questions about money and the economy. You can send through written questions, like these ones, but even better, you can drop us a voice memo to our email questions@rnz.co.nz.

A stupid question but is 46 too old to change to aggressive for my KiwiSaver?

This isn't personalised advice but in general, I wouldn't think so. It depends on a lot of factors like your personal risk tolerance and your investing timeframe.

Aggressive funds are among the most volatile options in KiwiSaver, and have even more exposure to growth assets than growth funds. They invest in things like equities that can fluctuate in value a lot, and you need to have time to ride out any downturns which could see your fund losing up to about 30 percent in a year. But over the long term, taking more risk tends to pay off. Morningstar data shows aggressive funds have returned an average 10.3 percent a year over the past 10 years, the best of the KiwiSaver bunch.

People are usually told they shouldn't be in an aggressive fund if they don't have 10 to 15 years to stick with it.

That said, even if you were a bit older than you are now, it could work. You don't have to pull all your money out at 65, and you may want to keep some exposure to growth assets at that point to help your investment grow.

I would talk to an adviser.

I've just read your response to a question on whether an individual should put their money into a managed fund or KiwiSaver. Your comment was that it's ultimately up to them but in your response you state that "Once you reach 65, a KiwiSaver fund is much the same as any other managed fund, because there are no restrictions on access to your money".

I've recently been told by a financial adviser that this isn't correct and that if you leave your money in a KiwiSaver fund beyond the age of 65 and the government then change the eligibility age for superannuation, this money is then locked into the KiwiSaver fund until you reach that age. Is this correct?

Technically, yes. But in practice I don't think this is something you need to worry about.

At the moment, access to KiwiSaver is tied to the age of eligibility for NZ Super, which is 65.

So if the age were to be increased, at the moment the law would mean the age of access to KiwiSaver would increase, too.

There are already discussions happening, though, about whether that's appropriate. I would expect access to KiwiSaver to be addressed alongside any plans to increase the NZ Super age.

I know some people think having access to KiwiSaver earlier than NZ Super could be a way to help people who want to stop working earlier, if the pension age rises.

I would also note that even if the age was pushed up without any change to the KiwiSaver rules, it would not be something that would affect you as a recently retired person. These sorts of changes are usually signalled well in advance to take effect over a period of time, usually for future generations.

I'm a real layman in regard to financial matters, and am completely lost - perhaps you could illuminate me a little. Now retired, I contributed to a retirement fund (not KiwiSaver) and recently asked them whether PIE (like in my KiwiSaver) was automatically paid across to IRD.

Their reply as I understood it stated that they pay a base fund 28 percent to IRD - but that PIE does not apply in the instance of retirement funds. I was informed that if I withdraw funds/close my account, then I need to inform this via my IR3 and I will be taxed accordingly at my 17.5 percent rate. My quandary is, does IRD make me pay tax on the entire retirement fund amount, or just on the "growth" aspect which has occurred across the years of investing contributions into that fund, the Teachers Retirement Savings Scheme.

Also, am I better off to perhaps withdraw my retirement scheme funds and have them invested together with my other funds which I have in KiwiSaver?

Very quickly, when you're invested in KiwiSaver you're usually paying tax on the income that your investments make, not the growth in the value of the investments themselves. (There are some complexities around this for foreign investments.)

You don't pay tax on withdrawal, except where there could be a "square up" to do on the tax you would normally pay in the year. You aren't going to be charged tax on the total withdrawal amount, or the growth you've had on your investments while you've been investing, or anything like that.

As for the PIE rate, Dean Anderson at Kernel says it's possible that the fund you're in has a fixed PIE rate of 28 percent. In that case, it could be beneficial for you to move to a multi-rate PIE that could allow you you pay tax at a lower rate.

He says it could be that you can now find a fund that's a better fit for your goals, or you might want to consolidate your money into your other investments. "For someone who's now retired, if you're on a lower tax rate then looking for a multi-rate pie is probably a good option because then they tax is automatically at the correct PIR and does not involve any tax filing.

"One of the benefits at the moment of the New Zealand regime is the fact that for an investor in retirement, why PIRs are really good is there is no capital gains tax, there's no other complexity to worry about. You can get into the right risk profile and then say, 'hey I want to sell down $100 or $1000 or I want to take out some holiday money or create a regular income' and there's nothing they have to think about from a tax perspective, it's all going to get handled."