Thanks to NZ Femme who put up this link.
https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/31639050894-e44e2c00
“‘It Can Be Done! Conquering Poverty in the US by 1976’, James Tobin,
who would go on to win a Nobel Prize, wrote in 1967. At that time,
almost 80% of the American population was in favor of adopting a small
basic income. Here is an interesting article about this episode of
American history. Nevertheless, Ronald Reagan sneered years later: ‘In
the sixties we waged a war on poverty, and poverty won.’
Milestones of civilization are often first considered impossible
utopias. Albert Hirschman, one of the great sociologists of the previous
century, wrote that utopian dreams are usually rebutted on three
grounds: futility (it is impossible), danger (the risks are too big) and
perversity (its realization will result in the opposite: a dystopia).
Yet Hirschmann also described how, once implemented, ideas previously
considered utopian are quickly accepted as normal.”
Encapsulates the empowerment of people inherent in both income security and real democracy.
“Almost 80% of the American population was in favor of adopting a small basic income”.
New Zealand was once considered one of the best places on earth to live.
It could be again …
Also published in The Standard. UBI.
Showing posts with label Taxation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxation. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
The Standard on Pay Rates.
Kia-ora
The New Zealand left wing newsletter/blog, "The Standard" has some interesting discussions on wage levels.
It appears only the already rich work harder when they are paid more. The poor have to work for love.
The idea that we are not competitive unless wages are low wears a bit thin when those at the very top can pay themselves 17 to 20% more each year.
Zetetic in The Standard on pay rates.
The New Zealand left wing newsletter/blog, "The Standard" has some interesting discussions on wage levels.
It appears only the already rich work harder when they are paid more. The poor have to work for love.
The idea that we are not competitive unless wages are low wears a bit thin when those at the very top can pay themselves 17 to 20% more each year.
Zetetic in The Standard on pay rates.
"As you know, the Right says more money incentivises harder work. John
Key felt he wasn’t working very hard when he first became PM on a net
$250,000 a year, so he gave himself tax cuts and pay rises worth $100 a
day. Just look at the results!
But I’m confused: why’s he cutting our pay with youth wages, higher Kiwisaver, and higher student loan repayments? Is it that rich people work harder when they get more money and poor people work harder when they get less?
I guess the elite really do see us as a different species – mules, I suppose. And I see them as a different species but for different reasons and as a different species – leeches.
But I’m confused: why’s he cutting our pay with youth wages, higher Kiwisaver, and higher student loan repayments? Is it that rich people work harder when they get more money and poor people work harder when they get less?
I guess the elite really do see us as a different species – mules, I suppose. And I see them as a different species but for different reasons and as a different species – leeches.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Comparative Advantage?
Kia-ora
In fact no country has ever succeeded on exports alone, without a healthy internal economy.
And no country has ever succeeded in benefiting from an export economy without State support of the export sector.
Of course, our pursuit of pure free markets has worked so well? How much has our number of people in poverty increased by, again?
Even Ricardo never suggested that Britain give up making wine altogether, or Portugal textiles.
In fact no country has ever succeeded on exports alone, without a healthy internal economy.
And no country has ever succeeded in benefiting from an export economy without State support of the export sector.
Of course, our pursuit of pure free markets has worked so well? How much has our number of people in poverty increased by, again?
Ha-Joon on free trade.
Particularly between
the trade policy reform of its first Prime Minister Robert Walpole in 1721
and its adoption of free trade around 1860, Britain used very dirigiste trade and industrial policies, involving
measures very similar to what countries like Japan and Korea later used in order to develop their industries. During this
period, it protected its industries a lot more heavily than did France, the supposed dirigiste counterpoint to its free-trade, free-market
system. Given this history, argued Friedrich List, the leading German
economist of the mid-19th century, Britain preaching free trade to
less advanced countries like Germany and the USA was like someone trying to
“kick away the ladder” with which he had climbed to the top.""
""Almost all of
today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their
industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit
of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are
actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.
Contrary to the
popular myth, Britain had been an aggressive user, and in certain areas a pioneer, of
activist policies intended to promote its industries. Such policies, although
limited in scope, date back from the 14th century (Edward III) and the 15th
century (Henry VII) in relation to woollen manufacturing, the leading industry of
the time. England then was an exporter of raw wool to the Low Countries, and Henry VII for example tried
to change this by taxing raw wool exports and poaching skilled workers from
the Low Countries.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
The "Wealth Creator" myth. Stealing the commons. Part two.
Kia-ora
One of the memes the wealthy and their sycophants prefer to repeat is that, "the wealthy create wealth".
Lies the Rich Perpetuate.
That is demonstrably wrong.
"The wealthy got their wealth by entrepreneurship and starting new business" ?.
Well! no. Most are wealthy because they are born with it. The majority of the rest because they gamed our system to make money from existing assets and public utilities. Morally, no different from robbing someones house.
How Allan Gibb's made a Mint out of a Former Public Utility.
""Gibbs spotted his opportunity early in 1990 when he did his hallmark one-page analysis of what Telecom might be worth. "It was a lovely, fat company, with huge margins and a lazy balance sheet. It was obvious if you could keep the margins it would be a fantastic business." Like an alpha predator, he went for the throat"".
"The wealthy became wealthy through start-ups and entrepreneurship. Selling people products they want".?
Less than 1% of the wealth held by wealthy households in the USA is invested as so called "angel capital". In reality the wealthy avoid risky start-ups, like the plague. They prefer privatizations of State utilities and financial products where there return is assured by tax payer funding. Those that are too big or too essential for the State to allow them to fail.
Affluent Survey.
In New Zealand many people bought into the myth that "if they wealthy were allowed to keep more of their wealth they would invest more in the productive economy and we would all be better off".
New Zealand went so far and fast with this Neo-liberal piece of B-s that, like Ireland, we were held out as a poster child for other countries.
The infamous "trickle down effect".
After 35 years of tax cuts for the wealthy, asset sales, anti-union legislation, deregulation of banking/finance and wage and welfare cuts.
We have;
Huge capital losses to offshore bankers and profit takers.
Growth well behind the OECD average.
Increasing child poverty.
Steeply rising prices. Especially for privatised utilities.
Median wages are dropping while the wealthy get 17% annual increases.
Billion dollar bailouts for financiers.
Millions of dollars to reinstate previously privatised essential infrastructure.
Anyone who still believes that giving the already wealthy more of our wealth is the answer is either seriously deluded, or venal.
One of the memes the wealthy and their sycophants prefer to repeat is that, "the wealthy create wealth".
Lies the Rich Perpetuate.
That is demonstrably wrong.
"The wealthy got their wealth by entrepreneurship and starting new business" ?.
Well! no. Most are wealthy because they are born with it. The majority of the rest because they gamed our system to make money from existing assets and public utilities. Morally, no different from robbing someones house.
How Allan Gibb's made a Mint out of a Former Public Utility.
""Gibbs spotted his opportunity early in 1990 when he did his hallmark one-page analysis of what Telecom might be worth. "It was a lovely, fat company, with huge margins and a lazy balance sheet. It was obvious if you could keep the margins it would be a fantastic business." Like an alpha predator, he went for the throat"".
"The wealthy became wealthy through start-ups and entrepreneurship. Selling people products they want".?
Less than 1% of the wealth held by wealthy households in the USA is invested as so called "angel capital". In reality the wealthy avoid risky start-ups, like the plague. They prefer privatizations of State utilities and financial products where there return is assured by tax payer funding. Those that are too big or too essential for the State to allow them to fail.
Affluent Survey.
In New Zealand many people bought into the myth that "if they wealthy were allowed to keep more of their wealth they would invest more in the productive economy and we would all be better off".
New Zealand went so far and fast with this Neo-liberal piece of B-s that, like Ireland, we were held out as a poster child for other countries.
The infamous "trickle down effect".
After 35 years of tax cuts for the wealthy, asset sales, anti-union legislation, deregulation of banking/finance and wage and welfare cuts.
We have;
Huge capital losses to offshore bankers and profit takers.
Growth well behind the OECD average.
Increasing child poverty.
Steeply rising prices. Especially for privatised utilities.
Median wages are dropping while the wealthy get 17% annual increases.
Billion dollar bailouts for financiers.
Millions of dollars to reinstate previously privatised essential infrastructure.
Anyone who still believes that giving the already wealthy more of our wealth is the answer is either seriously deluded, or venal.
Monday, June 18, 2012
On New Zealand's Retirement Income. Pension.
Kia-ora
The finance industry have been creaming their pants, for a return to the halcyon days, before the tax rebates were removed from superannuation savings. When they got to play with our money for free, and the negative returns and high charges were ignored, because of tax payer subsidies.
Egged on by the neo-liberals who prefer the elderly, the unemployed and the sick to starve in the streets, as an incentive to scare working people into accepting starvation wages, while they continue to get 17% increases in wealth, the finance industry is dreaming of getting more of their sticky hands on our wealth, with private super funds.
Since the 70's they have been constant in the meme that we cannot afford super. A meme that has been driven entirely by the self interest of those, who are too wealthy to need super and too mean to pay taxes, and a greedy finance industry.
Unfortunately, it is true, that if you repeat bullshit often enough, even those who should know better come to believe it.
We cannot afford super is code for, "we should leave our elderly to beg on the streets". So that wealthy people can pay less tax and the finance industry can again lose our savings for us.
In fact the idea that State super is unaffordable is crap from the same people that cry TINA and reckon that all social insurance is unaffordable.
If they win with super, they will just start on other social wages.
In reality it is much more affordable than the finance company bailouts, which would be necessary with private super.
.
"So, in 2050, we're projected to be paying only 1% of GDP more in superannuation than we were paying in 1990. Quelle horreur! This is not a difference to be terrified of, and it is easily manageable with a modest increase in taxation, either now or in the future (though that perhaps is exactly what those pushing for change are frightened of: higher taxes)".
Intergenerational theft is another piece of oft repeated stupidity.
"Do we really want to return to the days when most elderly people were totally impoverished when their working lives ended".
Super has always been paid for by current production. However you finingle it financially, whether through current taxation or savings, it still comes from the production of the current generation.
If we want to keep super affordable we should tax the current generation to invest in a sustainable future. Invest in energy, housing, education and other infrastructure so that we can keep all our people. Not in financial ponzi schemes which will fall over in the next GFC.
""Because our kids can’t afford to buy houses, we bought houses for them to live in using the equity from our house, and now all our money is tied up in mortgages. At the same time, we’re supporting our parents in their old age.
That’s how life is and always has been, for most of us. Our parents worked to give us a decent start in life, and we worked hard so our kids could have a fair go. We’re looking after our parents in their old age. We hope we’ll be looked after in our old age.
What about this is “intergenerational theft”?""
But. We can avoid the whole concept of retirement, intergenerational fairness and all the other sticking points by accepting that everyone in our society is entitled to a liveable share in the society they and their ancestors have built up.
Whether you call it a Universal income, Guaranteed minimum income (GMI) or a personal shareholder payment it is the same thing.
Replace all welfare, social insurance and pensions with a GMI.
We also get to solve many other problems such as child poverty, the unfairness of a present welfare system, and making our society more sustainable, at the same time.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/235840-A-Town-Without-Poverty-Canada-s-Guaranteed-Income-Experiment
""Initially, the Mincome program was conceived as a labour market experiment. The government wanted to know what would happen if everybody in town received a guaranteed income, and specifically, they wanted to know whether people would still work.
It turns out they did.
Only two segments of Dauphin's labour force worked less as a result of Mincome - new mothers and teenagers. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies. And teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families.
The end result was that they spent more time at school and more teenagers graduated. Those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did"".
http://thestandard.org.nz/key-on-the-nation/comment-page-1/#comment-483385 The best way to deal with any problem is to eliminate it at root. The best way to deal with ‘retirement’ as a problem is to eliminate the entire concept. No I’m not being extreme.
The simple answer is a Universal Income""
""In fact super has been so effective in removing poverty amongst the elderly it should be extended to everyone in the form of a guaranteed minimum income. There is no excuse for having people with inadequate food and housing in a country which is capable of supplying an excess of both internally"".
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Money and Debt. Explained by a 12 year old.
Kia-ora
A 12 year old Girl explains what economists will not.
Funny how a 12 year old can have a much better and clearer idea than all those university educated economists.
Or maybe they do, but know they will not be paid for questioning the current paradigm.
Note; New Zealand's Government, in the 30's, extracted New Zealand from the great depression, well before most others, by issuing Government money for public works and stimulus.
A 12 year old Girl explains what economists will not.
Funny how a 12 year old can have a much better and clearer idea than all those university educated economists.
Or maybe they do, but know they will not be paid for questioning the current paradigm.
Note; New Zealand's Government, in the 30's, extracted New Zealand from the great depression, well before most others, by issuing Government money for public works and stimulus.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
New Zealand at the Crossroads
Kia-ora
The NYT on the "success" of Neo-Liberalism.
As "No Right Turn" says this graphic is "an appalling indictment of Neo-Liberalism".
In New Zealand we have seen the effects just this year. Over 17% increase in wealth for the top few percent while 200 000 children live in relative poverty.
The pattern in New Zealand, since our great Neo-Liberal experiment, following the USA, Ireland and UK, has been the same.
Coddling the rich is destroying the American dream.
"No matter how many times it's said, lowering tax rates for the highest income Americans does not create jobs or stimulate the economy. In fact, a detailed look reveals that the overall economy does slightly better when taxes at the top are significantly higher. This also holds true on the state level, as states with higher top personal tax rates have growth rates and median incomes that average greater than those with low (or even no) taxes. No matter how many times the experiment is repeated, or how long you extend the results, cutting taxes for the wealthy does not stimulate growth."
Most of the wealth earned by Americans went to corporates.
"Corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income".
In New Zealand cutting taxes for the wealthy was supposed to stimulate the economy. Since the first round of high end tax cuts, investment in the productive economy, wages and manufacturing, in New Zealand, stagnated, and capital flew to gambles on offshore markets.
Decimation of Union and employee rights, and cuts in Government spending has resulted in huge drops in real income, for all but a few New Zealanders.
New Zealand is at the crossroads.
We can vote for National and ACT, and join the list of failed States like the USA and UK.
Another three years of failed Neo-Liberal policies will destroy the country we know.
Do we want third generation unemployment and riots in the streets like the UK. Or the repressive, unequal, surveillance society the USA has become.
For the first time since 1984 we have a clear choice. Continue down a failed Neo-Liberal road, or Own our Future.
We can vote for the Greens and Labour. For sensible policies, which were middle of the road, before Neo- Liberal religious hysteria took over.
The NYT on the "success" of Neo-Liberalism.
As "No Right Turn" says this graphic is "an appalling indictment of Neo-Liberalism".
In New Zealand we have seen the effects just this year. Over 17% increase in wealth for the top few percent while 200 000 children live in relative poverty.
The pattern in New Zealand, since our great Neo-Liberal experiment, following the USA, Ireland and UK, has been the same.
Coddling the rich is destroying the American dream.
"No matter how many times it's said, lowering tax rates for the highest income Americans does not create jobs or stimulate the economy. In fact, a detailed look reveals that the overall economy does slightly better when taxes at the top are significantly higher. This also holds true on the state level, as states with higher top personal tax rates have growth rates and median incomes that average greater than those with low (or even no) taxes. No matter how many times the experiment is repeated, or how long you extend the results, cutting taxes for the wealthy does not stimulate growth."
Most of the wealth earned by Americans went to corporates.
"Corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income".
In New Zealand cutting taxes for the wealthy was supposed to stimulate the economy. Since the first round of high end tax cuts, investment in the productive economy, wages and manufacturing, in New Zealand, stagnated, and capital flew to gambles on offshore markets.
Decimation of Union and employee rights, and cuts in Government spending has resulted in huge drops in real income, for all but a few New Zealanders.
New Zealand is at the crossroads.
We can vote for National and ACT, and join the list of failed States like the USA and UK.
Another three years of failed Neo-Liberal policies will destroy the country we know.
Do we want third generation unemployment and riots in the streets like the UK. Or the repressive, unequal, surveillance society the USA has become.
For the first time since 1984 we have a clear choice. Continue down a failed Neo-Liberal road, or Own our Future.
We can vote for the Greens and Labour. For sensible policies, which were middle of the road, before Neo- Liberal religious hysteria took over.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The wealthy deserve their wealth??
Kia-ora
One of the recurring memes is that the rich earned their wealth because of some innate superiority, extra effort or extra talent, and it is churlish to take some back off them..
One of the recurring memes is that the rich earned their wealth because of some innate superiority, extra effort or extra talent, and it is churlish to take some back off them..
Those at the top, got there, mostly, because of A) inherited wealth, B) the old boy network. (The real advantage of private schooling). C)total psychopathic self interest and disregard for others. (Called theft when done by those at the bottom).
They would have us believe that they have some special talent or superiority that justifies their wealth.
Anyone who watches the Kardashians can see that inheriting wealth is no guarantee of superiority.
Ridding them of some of their money makes for a more efficient economy and a fairer and more decent society.
Why do they have more right to the wealth produced by the workers in society than anyone else whether they work or not.
Jobs and livelihoods exist because there is a demand and need for them. Not because of money capital.
Also! Not because of the owners of capital. Recent events have shown, that, given free rein, the owners of capital hoard it and gamble it. AND expect taxpayers to bail them out when they lose.
The owners of capital are sitting on trillions at the moment. Extra 20% more wealth went to them in NZ this year. Where are the jobs??
Do you really think that if the owners of, say, supermarkets, in NZ withdrew their capital some entrepreneurs would not arise to fill the gap.
Democratic Socialists do not say we take all the money back off them.
Though as it is undeserved and unearned the communists may be right.
Taking capital of these people who tend to mispend, and gamble it, to enable more to those who spend and use it wisely, is economically and socially effective.
A very few get to the top because of effort, learning skills, entrepreneurship, producing something that a great many people value or by talent.
This is so rare however that these individuals are celebrated in the news.
Those deserve their money.
It is interesting though, that most of these people recognise that the social benefits from society, such as State education, helped them on their way and they are happy to give back in some way.
Don’t usually see them demanding less taxes.
Many more who could or would be entrepreneurs are constrained because A,B and C above take the wealth earned by us and waste it. Or use wealth to limit competition from below. Opposing all attempts at upward mobility. E.g. Dumbing down public education to the 3 r’s only to avoid the children of the “lower classes” from competing with their pampered darlings.
Don’t forget those who really produce the wealth. The wealthy would not survive without all of the workers. Even entrepreneurs need staff.
They would have us believe that they have some special talent or superiority that justifies their wealth.
Anyone who watches the Kardashians can see that inheriting wealth is no guarantee of superiority.
Ridding them of some of their money makes for a more efficient economy and a fairer and more decent society.
Why do they have more right to the wealth produced by the workers in society than anyone else whether they work or not.
Jobs and livelihoods exist because there is a demand and need for them. Not because of money capital.
Also! Not because of the owners of capital. Recent events have shown, that, given free rein, the owners of capital hoard it and gamble it. AND expect taxpayers to bail them out when they lose.
The owners of capital are sitting on trillions at the moment. Extra 20% more wealth went to them in NZ this year. Where are the jobs??
Do you really think that if the owners of, say, supermarkets, in NZ withdrew their capital some entrepreneurs would not arise to fill the gap.
Democratic Socialists do not say we take all the money back off them.
Though as it is undeserved and unearned the communists may be right.
Taking capital of these people who tend to mispend, and gamble it, to enable more to those who spend and use it wisely, is economically and socially effective.
A very few get to the top because of effort, learning skills, entrepreneurship, producing something that a great many people value or by talent.
This is so rare however that these individuals are celebrated in the news.
Those deserve their money.
It is interesting though, that most of these people recognise that the social benefits from society, such as State education, helped them on their way and they are happy to give back in some way.
Don’t usually see them demanding less taxes.
Many more who could or would be entrepreneurs are constrained because A,B and C above take the wealth earned by us and waste it. Or use wealth to limit competition from below. Opposing all attempts at upward mobility. E.g. Dumbing down public education to the 3 r’s only to avoid the children of the “lower classes” from competing with their pampered darlings.
Don’t forget those who really produce the wealth. The wealthy would not survive without all of the workers. Even entrepreneurs need staff.
Friday, August 12, 2011
In search of a justification.
Kia-ora
Many laughable statements come from the Neo-Liberal right, but the ones that seek a moral or economic justification for greed and meanness are the most comical. (If the effects were not so serious).
Like the one from a bailed out US bank manager. "God thinks I should have a bonus". :-)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
– John Kenneth Galbraith
The Standard.
Debunks the idea that taxing the rich more cuts total tax take. In fact the opposite has happened. As taxes to the rich have been cut in Western countries, Government revenues have decreased in most cases.
As I have said before. In the time of its greatest prosperity the US top tax rate was 90%.
Recent top rate tax cuts in New Zealand have resulted in decreased revenue each time.
Decreasing taxes on business and high incomes means more capital is free for more investment.
Did not work. Capital investment by private investors in NZ, the UK and the USA has decreased while they hid the money offshore, to dodge even more of the tax they should pay, or spend it on holidays in Hawaii. AND financial gambling. (Where we will have to bail them out next time they lose).
What's worse.
Cutting tax rates, and therefore revenues, cuts Government investment in the local economy in favour of those who take the money offshore. Never to be seen again.
In New Zealand the Government is borrowing offshore to pay for tax cuts to the rich. A double blow to the national deficit.
Similarly. Cutting wages is supposed to be an incentive for business to invest.
Trouble is cutting the wages of the businesses customers is even more of a disincentive. Low wage workers do not buy much.
Since the 1984 attacks on Unions and steadily dropping wages in New Zealand, direct investment in New Zealand production has dropped to 1/3 of what it was in the 70's.
Make the rich richer and they will give people jobs.
Jobs are not something the rich gives. Jobs are workers supplying their labour.
The rich are awash in money at present. 20% increase in the wealth of the richest in New Zealand. In the USA the rich are sitting on trillions. Where are the jobs??
In recent history job growth has come from State initiatives. It was not the private sector that pulled the USA out of the 30's depression, it was massive State spending, on the new deal, then WW2.
Lastly. The idea that the rich earn their money and we have no right to take it from them.
Who earns millions?
Most have millions because their family had millions. They contribute nothing and consume much more than poorer people.
Some entrepreneurs have started new business, produced services and ideas of great benefit to many people. It can be said that they earned their money.
It is notable that most of these people are philanthropists.
The rich benefit so much from our society it is only fair that they give back.
Better to take some if this money back and reinvest in infrastructure and the necessary green technology to ensure humanities future survival.
Many laughable statements come from the Neo-Liberal right, but the ones that seek a moral or economic justification for greed and meanness are the most comical. (If the effects were not so serious).
Like the one from a bailed out US bank manager. "God thinks I should have a bonus". :-)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
– John Kenneth Galbraith
The Standard.
Debunks the idea that taxing the rich more cuts total tax take. In fact the opposite has happened. As taxes to the rich have been cut in Western countries, Government revenues have decreased in most cases.
As I have said before. In the time of its greatest prosperity the US top tax rate was 90%.
Recent top rate tax cuts in New Zealand have resulted in decreased revenue each time.
Decreasing taxes on business and high incomes means more capital is free for more investment.
Did not work. Capital investment by private investors in NZ, the UK and the USA has decreased while they hid the money offshore, to dodge even more of the tax they should pay, or spend it on holidays in Hawaii. AND financial gambling. (Where we will have to bail them out next time they lose).
What's worse.
Cutting tax rates, and therefore revenues, cuts Government investment in the local economy in favour of those who take the money offshore. Never to be seen again.
In New Zealand the Government is borrowing offshore to pay for tax cuts to the rich. A double blow to the national deficit.
Similarly. Cutting wages is supposed to be an incentive for business to invest.
Trouble is cutting the wages of the businesses customers is even more of a disincentive. Low wage workers do not buy much.
Since the 1984 attacks on Unions and steadily dropping wages in New Zealand, direct investment in New Zealand production has dropped to 1/3 of what it was in the 70's.
Make the rich richer and they will give people jobs.
Jobs are not something the rich gives. Jobs are workers supplying their labour.
The rich are awash in money at present. 20% increase in the wealth of the richest in New Zealand. In the USA the rich are sitting on trillions. Where are the jobs??
In recent history job growth has come from State initiatives. It was not the private sector that pulled the USA out of the 30's depression, it was massive State spending, on the new deal, then WW2.
Lastly. The idea that the rich earn their money and we have no right to take it from them.
Who earns millions?
Most have millions because their family had millions. They contribute nothing and consume much more than poorer people.
Some entrepreneurs have started new business, produced services and ideas of great benefit to many people. It can be said that they earned their money.
It is notable that most of these people are philanthropists.
The rich benefit so much from our society it is only fair that they give back.
Better to take some if this money back and reinvest in infrastructure and the necessary green technology to ensure humanities future survival.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Signs of Hope.
Kia-ora
Signs that some of our Government have learnt from their mistakes.
The plan so far. NZ Labour Party.
""Labour will introduce a capital gains tax. It’s predicted the tax will raise $26 billion over 15 years that can be used to pay off
debt, cut taxes for most New Zealanders, save our assets and prepare for the mounting cost of our aging population.
Labour will also put the top tax rate back up to 39 cents for income earned over $150,000.
That’s likely to affect around 2% of the country’s top earners.
A CGT is already in use in nearly all developed countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom and United States"".
I wonder if the money people will allow so big a departure from Neo-Liberal dogma.
They are already trying to smear the leaders of Labour.
Signs that some of our Government have learnt from their mistakes.
The plan so far. NZ Labour Party.
""Labour will introduce a capital gains tax. It’s predicted the tax will raise $26 billion over 15 years that can be used to pay off
debt, cut taxes for most New Zealanders, save our assets and prepare for the mounting cost of our aging population.
Labour will also put the top tax rate back up to 39 cents for income earned over $150,000.
That’s likely to affect around 2% of the country’s top earners.
A CGT is already in use in nearly all developed countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom and United States"".
I wonder if the money people will allow so big a departure from Neo-Liberal dogma.
They are already trying to smear the leaders of Labour.
George Monbiot – How the Billionaires Broke the System
Kia-ora
George Monbiot – How the Billionaires Broke the System
"There are two ways of cutting a deficit: raising taxes or reducing spending. Raising taxes means taking money from the rich. Cutting spending means taking money from the poor. Not in all cases of course: some taxation is regressive; some state spending takes money from ordinary citizens and gives it to banks, arms companies, oil barons and farmers. But in most cases the state transfers wealth from rich to poor, while tax cuts shift it from poor to rich.
So the rich, in a nominal democracy, have a struggle on their hands. Somehow they must persuade the other 99% to vote against their own interests: to shrink the state, supporting spending cuts rather than tax rises. In the US they appear to be succeeding".
Sound like New Zealand.
18% rise in the wealth of the top 0.5 % this year. the rest officially minus 5.4 to 2.4 %. (Depending on if you got the 2% wage rise that some strongly unionised workers had or not).
George Monbiot – How the Billionaires Broke the System
"There are two ways of cutting a deficit: raising taxes or reducing spending. Raising taxes means taking money from the rich. Cutting spending means taking money from the poor. Not in all cases of course: some taxation is regressive; some state spending takes money from ordinary citizens and gives it to banks, arms companies, oil barons and farmers. But in most cases the state transfers wealth from rich to poor, while tax cuts shift it from poor to rich.
So the rich, in a nominal democracy, have a struggle on their hands. Somehow they must persuade the other 99% to vote against their own interests: to shrink the state, supporting spending cuts rather than tax rises. In the US they appear to be succeeding".
Sound like New Zealand.
18% rise in the wealth of the top 0.5 % this year. the rest officially minus 5.4 to 2.4 %. (Depending on if you got the 2% wage rise that some strongly unionised workers had or not).
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Some glimmerings of hope.
Kia-ora
At last Labour (NZ's, until now, slightly left Neo-Liberal party) are showing some signs of offering real visionary alternatives.
Comment from Labour.
Good on them.
Some thoughts.
The reaction shows that sensible people have been waiting for alternatives from the present voodoo economics.
CGT should be universal on any appreciating asset.
Without a CGT PAYE payers are subsidising speculators .
It expands the tax base in a way that also discourages unproductive speculation and borrowing.
Capital gains income should be treated the same as any other personal income for tax purposes.
Why should you pay up to 33% on your work income and a speculator or someone who does up a house for sale pay only 15%.
It has to be retrospective to have any real affect.
The family home will probably have to be exempt to make the policy politically palatable, but I see no real reason to complicate CGT by doing so.
Like GST, I believe tax systems are much harder to rort if they are kept simple.
I can see a lot of single children of wealthy people suddenly acquiring a family home.
If it is, there are several ways to make it less distortionate (Suggestions only. There are more).
1 The family home could be exempt up to say, twice the mean price.
2 First homes only could be exempt from CGT.
3 More State housing both to rent or buy keeps prices within reach of ordinary people and puts a further downward pressure on house prices.
4 Only charge CGT on the gap between selling a house and buying the next one.
5 Allow for inflation and normal maintenance.
Now we need to look at the bonanza for banks and speculators and nightmare for manufacturers and workers. The reserve bank act.
We wait with anticipation, the official announcement.
At last Labour (NZ's, until now, slightly left Neo-Liberal party) are showing some signs of offering real visionary alternatives.
Comment from Labour.
Good on them.
Some thoughts.
The reaction shows that sensible people have been waiting for alternatives from the present voodoo economics.
CGT should be universal on any appreciating asset.
Without a CGT PAYE payers are subsidising speculators .
It expands the tax base in a way that also discourages unproductive speculation and borrowing.
Capital gains income should be treated the same as any other personal income for tax purposes.
Why should you pay up to 33% on your work income and a speculator or someone who does up a house for sale pay only 15%.
It has to be retrospective to have any real affect.
The family home will probably have to be exempt to make the policy politically palatable, but I see no real reason to complicate CGT by doing so.
Like GST, I believe tax systems are much harder to rort if they are kept simple.
I can see a lot of single children of wealthy people suddenly acquiring a family home.
If it is, there are several ways to make it less distortionate (Suggestions only. There are more).
1 The family home could be exempt up to say, twice the mean price.
2 First homes only could be exempt from CGT.
3 More State housing both to rent or buy keeps prices within reach of ordinary people and puts a further downward pressure on house prices.
4 Only charge CGT on the gap between selling a house and buying the next one.
5 Allow for inflation and normal maintenance.
Now we need to look at the bonanza for banks and speculators and nightmare for manufacturers and workers. The reserve bank act.
We wait with anticipation, the official announcement.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Don't cry for Argentina!
Kia-ora
What happens if a country decides the Neo-Liberal dogma is a load of crap and tell the banks to get fucked.
Argentina Followed the same line as NZ, Greece, the USA and Ireland until 2002.
Watch what happened to their economy after they defaulted and made the banks wear their own greed.
What Happened to Argentina?
Acknowledgements to Paul Krugman.
What happens if a country decides the Neo-Liberal dogma is a load of crap and tell the banks to get fucked.
Argentina Followed the same line as NZ, Greece, the USA and Ireland until 2002.
Watch what happened to their economy after they defaulted and made the banks wear their own greed.
What Happened to Argentina?
Acknowledgements to Paul Krugman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The wealth was earned by the efforts and contribution of workers and tax payers.
I have already said that the skilled and entrepreneurs earn their wealth. It is their money.
A good Doctor, Teacher, builder, scientist, entrepreneur, (Your decent business with well paid employees) The person who produces and markets a more efficient windmill, deserve all we can pay them.
But as we all know it is State supplied infrastructure, education, stability and rule of law that enables them to prosper, as well as their own efforts.
How many successful businesses does Somalia produce. The locals have to resort to piracy!
For most of the wealthy though IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY! It is basically stolen money.
Do you really believe it is right that 50% of the richest people in NZ pay little or no tax despite being the biggest beneficiaries of the society we have created over decades.
Do you thing financiers should still be getting bonuses when they f–ked up so badly it cost trillions in tax payer funds worldwide to fix it.
What do the Koch brothers do to have such a large share of the worlds wealth? They have used their money to make the USA a failed State.
What actually did Key do that is such benefit to society that he earned 50 million. In fact he cost the NZ economy many times that to make it.
It would be more than fair to tax him 50% of his unearned dollars to mitigate the damage he did.
Fayrich stole millions when they acquired rail at mates rates, knowing they could asset strip all they liked. Some future Government would always have to build it up again as a vital piece of infrastructure for exporters. Should claw a proportion of that back also.
The property developer in Christchurch who went to court to overturn a council decision about building on dodgy land. Who is now sitting on his millions in Australia while we all pay for the damage.
Farmers who are sitting on millions in capital gains when they retire who pay $1700 a year in tax while paying starvation wages, and, still demanding all the benefits paid for by other peoples taxes.
Why should our elderly, sick and young people be living in poverty in one of the richest countries in history, just so the very rich can avoid a few% contribution to the society they benefit from.
We tried letting the wealthy keep more. It has proven to be a disaster.
1/3 decrease in investment, manufacturing almost gone, a relentless slide down the economic rankings, increasing inequality, massive hemorrhage of capital to financial gambling.
The way to get new money in the system and keep what is there is to bring back workers bargaining power (so money they have earned stays here a wages instead of disappearing offshore), tax capital flows, tax speculation, tax the wealthy more and use that money to invest in New Zealand (Including research and development as well as the health and education of New Zealanders), stop paying overseas banks to add zeros to their electronic ledgers and lend capital to ourselves. (Gaddafi’s big crime). As that arch lefty Adam Smith said. Tax the owners of capital and leave the producers alone.
Waiting for the private sector to re-allocate capital to benefit society has not worked, and never will!