Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Superannuation: Back to the Future, in reply to Moz,
Wealth taxes are a good idea, but they’re not a substitute for income taxes, they need to be part of a whole mix of different taxes if we’re to have an effective taxation system.
Of course they are a substitute for income taxes - well, not a substitute actually, because tax on labour is not a wealth tax and land taxes are. And yes, I'm happy for land tax to be one among many other forms of taxation (see above) - but the shift from taxes on labour being the lion's share of government revenue, needs to shift to taxes on land being the lion's share. That's my main point.
It's inevitable I think - as is demonstrated by the many tax credits and other means-tested subsidies aimed presently at the working class. The working class simply can't afford to pay the level of taxes asked of it at present.
-
Hard News: Superannuation: Back to the Future, in reply to Bart Janssen,
You don’t need to restrict yourself to only one tax.
And I probably wouldn't. Taxation on income from dividends would survive, excise tax would survive (at a level that is pegged to cost recovery of the consumption costs of those goods to society.. e.g., tobacco, liquor), consumption taxes would survive, tax on business profits would survive - the one you'd eliminate would be income from labour taxes... which make up the bulk of Crown revenue at present.
And as land taxes stablise (the likelihood would be I assume that they would be highest initially as land is over-valued in relation to its production potential), one might look to reduce consumption tax on essential goods and services if a predominantly land tax base proved sustainable.
-
Hard News: Superannuation: Back to the Future, in reply to Moz,
“where would the government get money if we don’t tax income?”
Land value tax - most efficient and most progressive of all taxes;
-
Hard News: Superannuation: Back to the Future, in reply to Richard Wain,
Yes, I'm in favour of a UBI as well - mainly as a result of reading the Morgan/Guthrie book.
So when GM launched TOP, I thought - great, that book (an overhaul of both tax and welfare) will be the policy platform, so I promptly sent off my $25 (or whatever it was) for the membership fee to ensure they got registered. Never expected them to have any other policies - I figured they would just focus on getting the UBI conversation started.
Then they came out with the tax policy (their first policy) - but didn't address the welfare side and hence, no UBI, The reason given was that it might come later if they can collect enough tax money first.
I expressed my dissatisfaction (as I assume many others did) and now (apparently) they are working on putting out a policy on a UBI. Shame though that they've crowded it out with a whole bunch of other policies.
Just running on a single issue - tax and welfare reform as per the Big Kahuna - would likely have been a much better strategy. It would have been like getting a referendum on it without having a referendum.
-
Hard News: Superannuation: Back to the Future, in reply to Kevin McCready,
Yes, I'm in agreement with that as well :-).
-
Hard News: Superannuation: Back to the Future, in reply to Andre,
Well said - with you on that for sure.
-
Thanks Russell, I had no idea about the history of changes – what a political football.
It’s a very complex subject if we start the discussion around forecasting and numbers and predicting whether we can/can’t afford this or that or whatever in the future. An elephant-cousin in the room is the burgeoning health cost associated with the extra longevity we are experiencing presently. Much of the additional life expectancy arises I suspect from medical interventions later in life that are now common and available to everyone in New Zealand, in particular the heart/circulatory interventions.
Our GP told myhusband and I when we were contemplating whether or not my husband would take up the offer of open heart surgery to repair a bad value (oddly enough the specialists just assumed he’d want the referral for surgery) – that the reason he is treating so many more elderly cancer patients these days is because they didn’t die of a heart complication earlier in life.
Both my husband’s parents died of heart disease before such time as either stents or open heart surgery or cholesterol-reducing drugs were available.
In a perfect world, I’d prefer that as a society we instead started the discussion around or values/morals – and got some kind of reasonable consensus on all these matters – not only what is morally right for our elderly but for all NZers unable to live with dignity and comfort based on their own earning potential.
I look at the world from a Marxian perspective, and on this matter when he said:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
So I guess my moral position would be: if I am fit and able to work in a role that provides a value-add service to the NZ economy, then I’d say I’m happy to keep working until such time as I am no longer adding value. And then, when I am no longer adding value, I might hope to draw a pension to assist in the funding of my end-of-life years (unless I have accumulated enough wealth not to need one). If I am able to provide a value-add service but choose not to work (i.e., to retire for the purpose of enjoyment of not working) then I figure I ought to have to fund that retirement myself.
Everyone will have a different moral position – or a different way of framing/expressing their moral position – but it seems to be the one thing that the public is prepared to talk about, but we never hear politicians voicing. Instead politicians give us their “policy positions” followed by words like fairness and equity (i.e., generalised moral sounding ‘words’ so as to be somewhat ambiguous).
-
Hard News: Drugs, testing and workplaces, in reply to Farmer Green,
So the real cleanup , in respect of nitrate has yet to begin, and the economic consequences nationally are massive.
In that, I think you and Mike Joy are agreed.
-
Hard News: Drugs, testing and workplaces, in reply to Farmer Green,
Apparently the waters that Forest and Bird et al want most to be cleaned up , will never be “swimmable” because they are under the ground.
Haven't read the link - but are you making the point that we needn't concern ourselves with the water quality of aquifers?
-
Hard News: Drugs, testing and workplaces, in reply to mark taslov,
OMG. Are you overseas? Something needs to be done about that - it's preventing many good Kiwi's from coming home, I suspect.