Written By:
- Date published:
10:02 pm, October 14th, 2025 - 88 comments
Categories: benefits, child welfare, economy, Economy, education, health, inequality, jobs, roger douglas, tax, uncategorized, welfare -
Tags:
Brian Easton says we cannot attain a sustainable Scandinavian-type quality of life while keeping the existing tax system in place
New Zealand has ‘Scandinavian ambitions in terms of quality of life, but a US attitude to tax’: Lara Clark.
One of the most perceptive remarks about New Zealand’s fiscal tension was made by former British High Commissioner Lara Clark. She is no FIFO (Fly in-Fly out commentator) but made the assessment at the end of four years in Wellington; she is married to a New Zealander (a human rights lawyer) and she confessed that her husband and children supported the All Blacks in a test against England.
Until the mid-1980s, New Zealand’s aspirations were undoubtedly for a Scandinavian quality of life with high government expenditure and high taxation. Indeed, once it was common, and not unrealistic, to argue that the policies introduced by the First (Savage-Fraser) Labour Government led the world ahead of Britain and Scandinavia. But the roots of the vision go back to the nineteenth century.
Rogernomics began undermining the vision in the 1980s by cutting its high tax rates on the rich. Most obvious were halving the top income tax rate. But as fiscally expensive, and therefore as favourable to those on high incomes, was the ‘imputation’ of corporation tax so that it became, in effect, a withholding tax that halved the already reduced effective income-tax rate on dividends.
The net effect was that the top tenth increased their relative share of disposable household income from 20% to 25%, with a corresponding reduction for the other 90%. (The top 1% did even better.) There was no capital gains tax, despite even some Rogernomes seeing this as a logical extension of their changes. Given the economy was stagnating, some income groups had no increase in their real incomes for more than two decades. Child poverty doubled.
GST was introduced, reducing the net fiscal cost. Even so, there remained a long-run fiscal gap which was obscured by short-term timing flows. National’s Ruth Richardson faced up to the gap when she became Minister of Finance in 1990. She and Jenny Shipley, Minister of Social Welfare, savagely cut benefit levels and cut, or attempted to cut, in other areas such as education (e.g. student loans) and health spending (e.g. charging patients for staying in a public hospital), shifting costs onto households. Government spending promoting the quality of life became less generous.
The two described their measures as ‘redesigning the welfare state’. It was shifting its conception from a Scandinavian one, as set out by the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Security – to enable everyone to feel a sense of participation in and belonging to the community – to a minimalist American one – to enable everyone to sustain life and health.
I’ve never been clear to what extent the two – or other advocates of the change – understood the transformation. In all their writings I have seen, they fudge the issue. But as the High Commissioner implied, once committed to ‘American’ levels of taxation a society, becomes forced to American levels of government spending with its very narrow vision of the quality of life. Hence the ongoing cutting back of social security entitlements.
The shift did not reflect a change in community aspirations although, of course, there was a minority who favoured a narrower role of the state. There was a more widely held view that state involvement in the economy had to be changed reflecting the increasing diversity and complexity of the economy but that it had to be, and could be, done without compromising the state’s involvement in the quality of life.
This left the fiscal tension that Lara Clark drew attention to. Given an American tax philosophy, New Zealand could not pursue a Scandinavia style of government involvement in promoting wellbeing.
Given the unwillingness to contemplate moving New Zealand’s tax regime from near the bottom to the middle of the regimes of affluent economies, I thought that it would be necessary for people to reduce their aspirations. Perhaps as the generations moved, younger ones, having grown up in Ruthanasia/Jennicide world of Richardson and Shipley would think it a norm.
They have not. It is true that they are becoming increasingly vague about the pre-Rogernomics policy framework (some of the social policy advisers to the recent Labour Government did not even understand the report of the Royal Commission on Social Security). But the ‘aorta’ still drives public policy pressures – ‘aorta do something about it’. (I’m trying to set out a reasonably value-free account in this column, but while personally I favour the ‘Scandinavian’ approach, compared to the centre of the population, I am more supportive of initially expecting reliance on self-initiative.)
So the tension remains. We resolve it in a similar manner to the Rogernomics Labour Government, by putting off the day of resolution by fiddling fiscal flows and commitments. The best example is our funding of support of the elderly (I shall write a separate column about that) but also we unsustainably depleting natural resources while failing to maintain infrastructure and to invest in human capital. The result is a backlog of troubles, steadily building up a horrendous bill for future generations (supposing they don’t emigrate – that is another future column).
The trick then has been to resolve current fiscal tensions by charging future generations. I leave you to make the judgement whether this is moral but note my earlier caveat that future generations can avoid the charge by migrating. (I describe how this happened to Newfoundland and its consequences in Not in Narrow Seas: The Economic History of Aotearoa New Zealand.)
The tensions are nicely illustrated by Jacinda Ardern on the one hand vetoing any rises in taxation and on the other leading the passing of the Child Poverty Reduction Act. It aims to halve child poverty. Back to 1990, when child poverty was doubled to pay for the Rogernomics tax cuts. It is obvious, isn’t it? New Zealand cannot reduce child poverty to pre-1990 levels with American style tax levels? Hence the Ardern Government’s failure to make much of a dent on child poverty.
We cannot attain a sustainable Scandinavian-type quality of life while keeping the existing tax system in place. It is not a matter of just introducing a capital gains tax. That may increase tax revenue (and improve the efficiency of the tax system) but the additional revenue is negligible compared to what the Rogernomes gave away.
As a New Zealand citizen I have my own values – and I am happy to promote them in an appropriate venue. But as a New Zealand economist my task here has been, like Lara Clark, to confront the nation with the stark fiscal tensions it faces. Ignoring them means they will some day be resolved in a brutal way.
*Brian Easton, an independent scholar, is an economist, social statistician, public policy analyst and historian. He was the Listener economic columnist from 1978 to 2014. This is a re-post of an article originally published on pundit.co.nz. It is here with permission.
It's an interesting observation that even 30+ years on from the major economic reforms, Kiwis still haven't actually bought into the American social system.
Quite so.
Great essay.
Thank you for making the often complex and our of reach simple easier to digest.
I am keen to hear what a 21st century alternative to the mid last century, neoliberal economic model might look like.
A dash of economic nationalism, improved worker share of the spoils and where the environment is elevated from 'that which can be exploited'.
"Tricle down", the idea that if you left the rich with more money, they would invest it in innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship, has so obviously not worked, it is a tribute to the human capacity for self delusion, or self interest, that it still has adherents.
The transfer of taxation from the wealthy to the poor in the 80's and 90's, combined with temporary "sugar rush" fixes like mass immigration, has resulted in stagnation, dangerously low state investment in the future and a country that is markedly poorer for most.
The headroom for soaking the poor and working people with myriads of sneaky taxes, while letting the rich off with most of the money, is fast disappearing.
Lack of investment in trades training and physical infrastructure, are just a couple of examples of "kicking the can down the road".
Stealing trained people from third world countries, while ours, the few we do train, leave, is not going to work long term.
It's such a flawed and failing model for so many reasons as you point out.
Where is an alternative or where can an alternative be discussed?
I like the circular or doughnut model that weka has highlighted a few times.
I can't help but feel that the pollies are one obstruction but the bigger one would be the senior management of the Public Service.
Even. Australian levels of tax, the country our young people are heading for, would be a useful step towards a more sustainable economy.
So, taxing people more – when they are already leaving because wages are much better in Oz – is a winning move?
Does tax loom large is in minds of the many Kiwis fleeing to Oz and elsewhere?
Some, more patriotic Kiwis may prefer Split Enz' 'Six Months in a Leaky Boat'
Nope. The pull is increased salaries and (in some places) ability to buy housing.
But increasing taxation here (with no change to salaries and housing) – would be another factor pushing Kiwis out.
The Greens, and myself are advocating less tax on normal working people, the ones we need who are leaving, and shifting tax to those who are making bank on asset speculation and other dysfunctional forms of making wealth. Shifting tax from those who produce to those that parasite off them.
Reversing the increased tax on workers and the decrease in tax on the wealthy which occurred in the 80’s.
A no tax threshold, on the first 19k? like Oz for example.
The biggest tax on the poor (or even middle class) – and a regressive one at that – is 15% GST. Is the GP proposing to remove this.
If you are looking at the tax brackets for 'ordinary working class' there is not a significant difference between NZ & Australia.
The higher tax bracket of 37% kicks in at $135K – which is above your ordinary working class category.
However, Australia has the very significant revenues from it's mining sector supporting the tax system. And individuals have significantly higher salaries.
How does the GP proposal address these two factors.
NB: while I personally support a zero taxation for the first $20K of income (and my teen would be ecstatic). How does this address Mrs I have a Wealthy Husband, who has a vanity 'job' earning $20K. Why should she not be taxed?
We could also ask why a couple pay tax individually, but receive welfare on a family/household basis.
I.e. a household with one 120k income earner pays considerably more tax than a household with two 60k income earners. Maybe the wife's, "pocket money" is made up for by her high income husband?
Again, it depends on who you tax.
Actually, it depends on the whole tax take.
If you have 1 million people with salaries over $500K – you get a lot more tax dollars at 37%, than you do if you have only 100K people in that salary/tax bracket.
If your economy has significant export income (looking at Aus and Norway for example) – then you have options to reduce your internal tax take.
If your economy is skewed to low-earning workers – then you have an issue.
If we call tax rates below the maximum rate threshold ( which affect all taxpayers regardless of income) a sort of subsidy, then the $120 dollar person gets only one "subsidy" while two $60 persons get two subsidies on their combined incomes.
Not more but differently – consider what would happen if we adopted the same rates and bands as Australia for income tax – with our without adjustment for currency values, and also adopting the view that we used to share that realised capital gains form part of taxable income, with exceptions for the family home but stamp duty for more expensive house sales. There are other complications of course – we do not have the same level of mining as Australia, and we may treat the fishing industry differently, and our treatment of overseas investment may also be different. I suspect our highest marginal tax rates are still paid by beneficiaries who get a pay rise – that may be different in Australia as well.
Given that Australian salaries in the key 'pull' areas are often 20% higher than NZ ones – I seriously doubt that increasing NZ taxes to the same level as Australian ones – would have any benefit in retaining nurses, etc. Why would they stay here on lower salaries, with increased taxes?
The Australian economy is significantly supported by the mining and extractive industries.
The Australian experience is that stamp duty adds to the government tax revenue, but has little (if any) impact on house prices. Have you looked at Sydney or Melbourne recently?
The more affordable housing in Queensland is made possible by a vast degree of urban sprawl. Which is simply not replicable in places like Auckland or Wellington (geography) – and probably simply not desirable.
Raising income tax – without any attempt to deal with the 'pull' issues from Australia – is simply going to encourage even more people to leave.
Raising taxes allows higher salaries for State employees, and higher pay overall.
Sorry, I seriously doubt that that is going to go down at all well in my workplace.
"Hey, you minimum wage guys – your taxes need to increase so the government can afford to pay more to State employees."
Taxes have *nothing* to do with salaries.
It's supply and demand.
Re read what I said above.
We should be taxing the wealthy more and minimum waged people less. Like we did until 1984.
Not a blanket increase.
The Greens plan has a no tax threshold like Oz.
If it was "supply and demand", teachers, nurses and doctors would be on Ozzie rates of pay.
Teachers, doctors, nurses on Aussie rates of pay.
Well, they would be, if there were zero applicants for every advertised role. Newsflash, there are not. There is still an oversupply of applications for every advertised vacancy.
Now, if you want to argue that the government (in the broadest sense – reflecting every administration for the last 20 years) – is deliberately constraining job creation in an attempt to constrain costs – then I'd agree with you.
But, really. If a private hospital is unable to attract a senior nurse at $X salary – they absolutely will increase the salary offer.
Charter schools (that bugbear of the left) absolutely have freedom to increase teacher salaries in order to fill vacancies and attract the best available. And, anecdotally, that’s exactly what they’ve done.
Why shouldn’t difficult-to-staff schools (i.e. no applicants) – increase the salaries to the point that teachers are willing to work there? Of course – that’s anathama to the Teachers Unions…..
Charter schools have around 47k of tax payer funding per student, compared with 9k for State schools.
Of course they can pay higher salaries to attract who they think, are the best of State trained teachers.
"Higher pay is anthema to teachers unions". First time I've heard that. In fact there are payments to attract teachers to hard to staff schools. However from personal experience good teachers that work in "hard to staff schools" are not primarily motivated by money. The best and most dedicated teachers I had the privelige, that word again, to work with, were in a decile 1 school.
Beneficiaries, student allowance recipients and anyone receiving both Working for Families and the Accommodation Supplement (abatement rate of 27% and 25% = $0.52/$1 of income, + PAYE, SL deductions and Kiwisaver as applicable).
Anyone in social housing funded by the Income-related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) e.g. state housing will see their rent increase at the next review by 25% of additional earnings in addition to PAYE etc. As with Accommodation Supplement, that's cumulative on Working for Families so adds up to a hefty effective marginal tax rate.
In NZ we put most of the tax on workers.
Not, on those who benefit from the fact that in NZ, wages have lagged further and further behind productivity.
In Oz they still have Unions and worker protections. Hence higher wages and taxable incomes.
Little to do with exports.
Depends on which people you tax more.
Suggest people look very closely before they start talking up the "nordic' model.
The model is terminally ill due to large numbers of migrants who have a different cultural view of being a beneficiary. It worked OK(ish) when countries had homogenous populations, having very strong social contracts that put significant and tangible obligations on beneficiaries.
Benefits in many nordic countries come with strict time limits and accountabilities on the beneficiaries. Intergenerational beneficiaries have historically been unheard of in Sweden, Norway and Iceland for example.
In Norway unemployment benefits are time bound and linked to the prior tax paid.
29% of New Zealanders, 13% of Danes and 17% of Norwegians are migrants but yeah,
Islammigrants are the problem./
If the Scandi model is terminally I'll, how do you describe the model that we are running?
I'd call our current model "Zombienomics"
A Coalition corpse.
Noting that even Sweden hasn't been immune to the Neo-liberal infection.
Gosh, what do you think would have triggered the change from one of the societies which were most liberal and welcoming of refugees/immigrants?
Could it possibly be the widely reported failure to integrate into Swedish society.
No. Just like us the sneaking in of more right wing dogma in Government.
Using immigration to keep wages low and asset prices high is a symptom. Not a cause.
I think you are very substantially misreading the reason for immigration into Sweden. It was entirely driven by liberal charity for refugees- and there was little (if any) market benefit from an influx of low-skill adults into a high-skill economy.
The failure of these migrants to integrate – especially intergenerationally – and the increase in violent crime – has soured the general population of Sweden to high-volume migration – especially of groups which have nothing in common with the country.
Yes, this has been tapped by far right political groups – but, if everything in the garden was lovely, they'd have nothing to tap.
Spending on seriously helping people into having enough to eat, housing, education, training and steady jobs, tends to reduce long term "dependence" on welfare. Funny that!
I think we developed a system similar to the Scandinavian one in the fifties and sixties, but things seemed to go wrong in the seventies when we suffered stagflation. The latter was probably due to increased oil prices and other factors which had nothing to do with the system itself. However right wing propagandists convinced us that the system was the problem and so we switched to neoliberalism,
Too many people bought into the delusion, that in a more unequal society, they will be the ones on top.
New Zealand's economy was paid for by agricultural exports in the 50s and 60s – the boom in meat, wool and dairy gave us one of the highest standards of living in the world.
The boom was declining towards the end of the 60s, and was cut short by the entry of Britain into the EU in 1973 – cutting off our major market. Combined with the oil shocks of the 70s – NZ's standard of living dropped significantly.
The tax take from the exports dropped substantially. If farmers are making less (and they were making a lot less) – then the amount of tax they pay also drops.
Any country can have lower internal taxes so long as they have a highly profitable export industry. We see this with Norway – where the economy is cushioned by their oil exports. Enabling a high social support system, with relatively low personal taxation (while the corporate tax rate – especially on oil – is very high)
There is no magic money tree. If you want a high social support system, *someone* has to pay for it. If you can arrange for that 'someone' to be outside the country (i.e. an export-led economy) – that's the best outcome for your citizens. But if that changes (the exports drop away) – then you're unlikely to be able to make up the shortfall with internal taxation.
Don't forget low imports compared to exports.
As most of New Zealands consumption was produced internally. We could have a high standard of living, off a few cows and sheep paying for the small part of consumption that we imported.
Mostly oil prices, and after the 80's, privatisation and financialisation, permanently worsened our balance of foreign exchange.
Oil, is still a major part of our unfavourable balance of trade. Making it even more urgent that we replace the haemorrhage of foreign exchange for oil, to locally produced renewables.
And yes. We can and must make up the shortfall with internal production. Muldoon got that one right. Though the execution was patchy, and successive Governments simply gave it away.
But that low imports thing in the 50s-60s was an artificial restriction.
People had to wait years to get a new car (for example) – because the numbers being imported were kept artificially low.
I don't think that there would be widescale acceptance of (say) a restriction on consumer electronics – meaning that you'd have to wait 2-3 years to get a new computer (or – worse still – phone 🙂 )
There is close to zero chance that NZ will ever be in a position to manufacture these locally.
Looking solely at oil imports (which are a large component) – the shift to electrification of the individual vehicle fleet – will bring this down over time. However, there is a very long way to go – given the age of the fleet
There are currently not good alternatives to oil for heavy machinery (on farms, for example).
Instead of huge 'think big' projects – which are subject to source failure, and cancellation (Marsden Point) – I think we should be looking at a lot more distributed capacity. Small scale wind/solar farms – and localized generation using solar panels. However, wind/solar farms are heavily subject to NIMBYs. And individual solar is reliant on individuals having the capital to invest.
In regards to limited choice and wait times, we don't have to return to the dark ages of the 60s/early 70s though.
The recent 'right to repair' bill would have been a great way to limit the junk consumer electronics imports we are addicted to.
We must not forget that the huge tax swap. From taxes on those most able to pay, to stinging workers and the poor instead, meant that the cost of a reduced comparative standard of living was disproportionately put on those most unable to pay.
The wealthy are better off than they were in the 60's and 70's.
How do you define better off – for either the wealthy or the poor?
I go by ownership of over 20m yachts.
A good proxy for relative wealth.
Conversely. In the 60's and 70's, I was there, the poor had a house, enough to eat and equal access to healthcare, schooling and recreation.
To continue with the boats, method. Even the poorest had enough spare income to build themselves a dinghy. Now, they struggle to afford a car to live in. I suppose cars being cheaper than in the 70's at least makes that achievable.
In the 60's and 70's the well off, which was most people with a job, built themselves a 30 ft boat. I was one. If they were really "rich" they bought a locally produced 36 footer and a caravan. Now, the wealthy buy over 15m gin palaces from overseas.
Gosh. I was there in the 70s as well. No boats in our household. Perhaps we were poorer than I thought…..
Probably spent it on beers every Friday night instead, like many of my contemporaries.
They had that choice, though!
Nope, No alcoholics in my family.
Certainly no Friday night beersies.
You might want to start checking your privilege, here.
https://socialmediapsychology.eu/2016/10/05/onlineandsocialmediacomments/
Nice link, thank you.
Mmm. Mostly with consumer electronics you want new – because the state of the art has shifted substantially in (say) 3 years.
If you're talking about your kettle – or heater – then I'm right with you. In an ideal world, I'd love to be able to repair rather than replace.
Although a lot of the issues are the cost to repair. It may be possible, but it's not economic.
I recently replaced a 10-year-old washing machine. Cost of parts to repair: around $350. Cost of repairman: $400+ (call out fees, time, etc.). And, of course, no guarantee that another issue won't arise next month. Cost of new machine (with 5 year warantee): $900 (good deal at the big box shop).
Had the repair cost been $350 – I might have gone with it….
However, a NZ law is going to have little impact on international vendors.
And customers are going to be pretty unhappy, if they can only buy EU products (at EU price markups) rather than 'cheap' ones from Asia – because the former can be repaired and the latter can not.
Small scale wind and solar are subject to economies of scale, though I do agree that they should be placed more locally. Less distribution costs.
Marsden point was an example of a successful "think big" project, along with hydro dams. Marsden point has made billions for the private owners over decades. Unfortunately ideological madness in the 80's and 90's ment we didn't get the benefits from those public investments that we should have had.
Now, if course we should be invested in import substitution again. Especially in energy. Not oil however. That is a dead end these days.
Economies of scale – is a factor. And not suggesting that they replace larger scale projects. But micro generation projects also produce multi-redundant back up – in the event of significant power transmission failures.
Thinking here of the Auckland electrical blackout in 1998, and the transmission tower collapse in Northland in 2024. As well as ongoing issues with storms, etc.
One of the good things about wind and solar is, in New Zealand, plants can be pretty much anywhere. And, as you say, sized to suit the purpose
The Auckland Vector power outage was a direct consequence of underinvestment in redundancy and maintenance. One of the engineers from that time is a family member. Something that is still happening.
Actually there is a "magic money tree", and all of our money is created out of thin air. The banks create new money when we borrow from them and the government creates new money each and every time that it spends.
The government has to spend its currency first before we can pay our taxes and which allows it to reclaim its currency to then be canceled. Our taxes don't actually pay for anything. The Reserve Bank explains this in its article 'Money Creation In New Zealand'.
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/project/sites/rbnz/files/publications/bulletins/2023/money-creation-in-new-zealand.pdf
I look forward to you waving your magic money tree at the supermarket…..
Once a country has slashed taxes and the majority have never known any other world, is it even possible to raise them again, even when there's a positive outcome?
"Tax" has become a dirty, evil word, theft even; the population has been well and truly indoctrinated. And we all know that any suggestion that a party is remotely considering thinking about studying options for collecting more tax (from any source) will not win or get voted out.
Do you know anyone who cheerfully looks at their payslip, notes the amount of tax they're paying, and says 'Hmm, that looks low, I think that I should be paying more'?
I'm going through the counter narrative at the moment.
My brother who would be to the right of Genghis Kahn, and quite libertarian, has not paid PAYE for decades. He does firewood for cash.
Now our elderly mother is needing support to live in her own home after a recent hospitalisation.
Twice now he has had a rant about the standard of care, once in the wards and again in the home about the home support (showering).
I'm waiting for the penny to drop. Intentional pun.
Suggest that he move in with her – and take responsibility. After all – that would be the libertarian thing to do…..
Or chop a bit more firewood to pay (off the books of course) someone else to do the work.
I agree, while libertarian it would also be a bit woke.
He is doing good mahi with Mum however.
In respect to tax, a FTT has to be part of the solution. All those untaxed currency trades and various financial 'instruments' would resp a windfall and not impact the great unwashed.
and what about the people without family?
Oh, I wasn't proposing it as a general principle – just as a specific response to this libertarian individual.
The ones who complain the most about tax, that I know, are the ones paying the least. Farmers and some businesses in particular.
Ironically the biggest consumers of State services. After all “are entitled”!
Possibly because they have accountants, and the potential to do something to reduce their taxes.
Meanwhile, the PAYE lower income people look at their tax, and then look at their take home pay – and seriously want a transfer from one to the other…..
I don’t know why you’d think that farmers and business owners are the greatest consumers of State services. Which ones were you thinking of?
All of them!
I’m one myself.
Though I don’t grudge paying taxes for it.
Do I need to write down the huge list of public assistance for business in New Zealand.
I could start with education for our workers.
Really?
I don't know that farmers are greater than usual beneficiaries of education services (indeed, many of the wealthy ones opt for private schooling – boarding schools).
How about health care? The wealthy are much more likely to have private health insurance – which means that they are paying for the vast majority of their healthcare outside the public system.
Farmers don't employ State educated staff?
In NZ private healthcare sponges off the State system.
That's a bit of a stretch.
Are you implying that there is no other benefit to education (either personal or societal) than that 'enjoyed' by the employer.
Could you explain how someone getting knee replacement surgery privately (which is virtually unobtainable via the public health system) is 'sponging off the State system’? There is no government money provided for this operation. There is no healthcare support provided or obtainable for recovery. The infrastructure is entirely private. The staff may (or increasingly) may not have been educated in NZ.
You admit that State education and training is of at least some benefits to employers?
Nowhere did I say there wasn't other societal benefits.
Note: When I did my first apprenticeship, in the 70’s, my employer paid almost the entire costs. Including my living costs and equipment. Nowadays that will be paid by the prospective employee, and the Government. Is that not a subsidy for the employer?
Presumably the business taxes paid by the employer contribute to the small fraction of the employee education which is of direct benefit to the employer.
Although, if you want to argue that state education is largely of benefit to the employer – then the corresponding argument is that the employer should have a very large say in what is included. Therefore, reading, writing, maths, science is in – and the rest are optional extras to be paid for by the parents.
Not a philosophy that I'd think you'd support.
Note: When my brother's IT team upgrades their CISCO certification (for example) – the employer pays for the course – and gives the employee a bonus and pay rise on completion.
[NB: they do this because of customer requirements for high-level certification, not out of the goodness of their hearts :-)]
If the employee then leaves – should the employer be able to claw back that cost – not just the direct payment, but the overall increase of 'employability'?
"Check my privilege". LOL.
I think it is obvious that I'm one of those doing fine.
My parents were poor however. From choice of living a life of service to others. We still had a house, food and a decent education in the 60's and 70's.
And I've had my own experience of a long period of illness, and little money. Luckily I had a lot of valuable skills to fall back on to recover afterwards. Many are not as lucky!
When you check your privilege, I think that you'll find that your parents were not poor. And you lived rather well in the 60s and 70s. Certainly better than any of the truly poor.
KJT, B knows more about your parents' finances, and how well you lived in the 60s and 70s, than you – you just have to accept this, and "check your privilege". You know the type.
https://thestandard.nz/fiscal-choices-scandinavia-or-america/#comment-2046941
LOL
Private health care is dependent on a public system.
Training and staffing for a start. The recent bleating by Phil O'Reilly wanting government to fund licences and toolbelts is modern business in a nutshell.
Then when patients get really sick it's off to the nearest ED in a public hospital.
So if the private healthcare is increasingly staffed by overseas trained doctors and nurses?
ATM, you could equally argue that public health care is dependent on the private system. Most specialists wouldn’t remain in NZ if they were dependent only on their state salaries.
And the entire workload handled by the private healthcare would bring the public system crashing to the floor (it’s already on its knees)
Infamously, wealthy farmer and business owner the late Tim Wallis crashed one of his warbirds in 1996 and needed substantial rehab. He used ACC to the max. North and South (or maybe Metro) ran an article on the wealth and access disparities for people on ACC. At the same time Wallis was making his claims from the public purse, a poor family nearby were struggling to get adequate support for their son (don't remember the details of his accident).
Why would Wallis need to use the state funding? Why would someone in his position choose to do so?
I think you will also find that many high wealth people also choose to get superannuation when they don't need it.
ACC is the legal replacement for being able to sue for harm caused. Rather than being a state benefit.
The argument proposed was that wealthy people are higher users of state funding than poor ones.
I can pretty much flat guarantee that there are zero poor people refusing to claim superannuation. So, if even *some* rich people refrain, as a group they will consume less of this funding.
Perhaps we should tax productive income far more lightly – and perhaps wages and salaries not at all – and tax unearned income (interest and land rent) more heavily.
An alternative would be to scrap all taxes on income except very high incomes, a high proportion of which should be considered economic rent anyway, and switch to land taxes to pay for government expenditure.
What Adam Smith said.
Basically, tax rentiers, not worker’s.
Does any political party have a sound, well-researched plan for the economic and social advancement of NZ in these challenging times? Not that I can see.
National and NZ First want to "unleash growth" – a return to the 1960s that will see what is left of our environment plundered for short term gain.
Labour is saying nothing so far, although there are rumours of a capital gains tax.
It all seems to be a Micawberish approach; the hope that something will turn up to make the economy better.
The main economic plan for both main parties, is to bring in a lot more people, for a short term illusion of growth, and hope that the bill comes due well after the next election.
They are leaving the invoice for payment by the next generation.
Here's my tongue-in-cheek quick fix: we do a deal that allows China to set up a huge naval base in the Chathams (a 99 year lease, as in Hong Kong).
In return, they pay off NZ's national debt.
Greens have put a detailed plan out – obviously opinions will differ as to how sound it is.
Needs a new party of gen Z inspired engagement IMO.
Engage them now as the protests in other parts of the world indicate they've had enough of the crap health, education, opportunites etc they're getting from their governments.
Imagine that party with someone like David parker advising on tax policy as the main parties weren't interested in his sterling efforts to bring reform. Others are.
It’s their future.