…well I suppose you could let them die…or you could treat them, send them an invoice and they can pay later. This is what we do with tourists. For larger costs, maybe a loan is more suitable, like what we do for most students now.

But I thought the whole idea of the welfare state is that, if you get into trouble i.e. get sick or run out of money, then out of compassion the rest of us will provide the basics so that you won’t starve to death in some gutter somewhere.

Under the Douglas tax scheme, I forsee a lot of people signing up to the low-tax, low-services band during times of fair weather and infinite work for all. And then when economic sh*t happens and there are suddenly a hell of a lot more people than jobs around, those who paid the higher tax band all those years will end up not only looking after themselves, but forced to take care of all those who enjoyed the lower tax lifestyle for years as well.

We have traditionally used income as a proxy for wealth, but whilst there is a reasonable correlation it isn’t as close as we might hope – there are plenty of people with a lot of assets who receive benefits, there are plenty of people who make a good income but aren’t wealthy in the “has two cars and a boat” sense of the word.

The reason we tax income instead of wealth is that it is easy – we can find income and measure it, whereas wealth can be hidden away in trusts and other vehicles, and in assets that produce largely capital gain.

I’d personally be all in favour of rebalancing our tax system towards other things that are also a proxy for wealth – for example:
– spending taxes (GST). People who spend more money are also probably wealthier
– capital gains tax. People who have a lot of capital gains are probably wealthier than those who don’t, and capital gain may be a better proxy than income
– carbon tax. People who emit more carbon are probably wealthier

If we reduce our reliance on pure income tax, we also reduce the incentive to hide income, and reduce the effective marginal tax rates of people moving into work.

One of the most serious social diseases in any Western country is caused by those disengaged from it’s economy. They have only their entitlements to protect and grow.. always at the expense of those paying for the entitlement unless you have an enlightened government governing for the welfare of *all* it’s people.

I, too, want to protect and maybe grow entitlements.. but only in a sustainable way, and that’s by cutting the costs of government and overheads.

One of the best ways to achieve this desirable status is to tax the beneficiaries so that their first desire in protecting and growing their entitlements is to call for the elimination of costs in the economy that hold them back.

We want.. we *need* beneficiaries to be our first line of defence against wanton Govt spending which increases their taxes.

JC

But the price of desocialising health care is too high. The US is facing this problem right now, with health insurers excluding every pre-existing condition they can to avoid payment, health insurance and pension schemes tied to employers that blow up when the company Chapter 11′s. Never lead pharma and doctors into a conflict of interest with the Hippocratic Oath.

The Wisconsin model of privatised social welfare is also not going too well in this recession either. US agencies are asking for more front-end funding from the state governments to deal with the splurge of unemployed. Half a million Americans are going jobless every month. How can you work on maintaining those numbers with only a handful of jobs ads to offer? That’s one sucky commission.

I’d like to hear Roger talk more about Capital Gains Tax. After all, that’s part of the Treasury’s policy mix. Move the tax structure from mobile to fixed capital.

The USA and countries with a similar structure, where the lowest income earners pay no tax at all, can only do that because they have a lot of very wealthy people whose taxes, even at “wealth-friendly” rates, amount to a significant portion of government revenue. I remember a comparison, probably from ACT, that showed that the top 1% of taxpayers in the USA paid something like 35% of the total tax take; but in NZ it was more like 10%.

He complains about mortgaging our children’s future – but will vote for a budget with a record $6 billion deficit, and I am sure the mere suggestion of resigning would be met with headscratching incomprehension by Sir Roger.

The idea is an excellent one and the reason for that is because it is Libertarianz policy (which ACT have nicked!) ha ha!

As a society, do you let the prudent, disciplined and self sufficient sector die off, while preserving the lives of the foolish, lazy and self indulgent?? What is the obvious outcome of such a process??

You never see them to-gether do you?

Bloody well said getstaffed, I note that this is exactly the language used by certain fucking idiots over at the Labour party and EPMU blog when they were discussing that fat useless bitch Victoria Stevens last week.

One of the criminal apologists said it was unfair for the right to attack Stevens as she was simply receiving benefits that she was “entitled to”.

Lets make him New Zealand’s Finance Minister.

DPF and others who wonder about how to create the perfect scheme – never before seen on the face of the earth – can rest assured that Douglas’ theory would necessarily go through the real life twist of the generations of socialist attitude we have in NZ. Douglas doesn’t even have to make plans for the exceptions because between this start point and the finished product it would be so butchered and bastardised that all emergencies would be covered. No one died of starvation during the first round of Rodgernomics, there were foodbanks. So what. No one died – and that’s the backstop that the social liberals want so why can’t they accept it is there and make the step into an overall positive future?

People will always chop n change and wail about their choices. Do not mistake wailing for discomfort or emergency. The people who choose not to pay their electricity bills now will get caught out by not bothering to buy health insurance in any form other than an extra six pack of beer. But that is the whole point – NZ is paying ten times over for these people right now. Who would give money from their pay packet to such a person of their own free will? They need to be exposed to their own responsibility, to their choices, that is the key. NZ’s whole depressive/sentimental/emotional outlook needs to be tempered with real responsiblity and this theory will do it. Once people begin to experience the effects their choices make in the world the collective mental shift will change every aspect of NZ culture. And that’s how real culture works – from each individual’s experience adjusting the whole – not by legislating equality laws.

I imagine this release from ACT is a frustrated reaction to John Key’s obvious swing to the left over the last few days. He should take note – he’s had three or four warnings about his “pragmatic” compromises and appeasements already, if he does it again he may find that ACT take all of the right vote from him at the next election. He’s fast leaving the ground of right wing politics completely.