A maximum wage
October 17th, 2012 at 3:14 pm by David FarrarWaikato history student Ryan Wood writes in the Herald:
This is where the maximum wage comes in. If the top salary is legally fixed at, say, $200,000 a year, these economic miracle-workers running companies will have no choice but to start their own businesses where, as shareholders, they can indulge in the dividends they deserve. The creation of new companies will in turn lead to more jobs, thus negating the need for any “starting-out” wage.
A maximum wage also has a trickle-down effect. The millions of dollars that would have been paid to CEOs could instead be paid as bonuses to workers, or used to lift the average wage of employees at the company. These people could then spend their extra income, further supporting the economy.
Critics are likely to label the concept of a maximum wage as “socialist”. In fact, wage reduction is a neo-liberal idea. The National Government has already espoused it, although their focus was on workers rather than their bosses.
A maximum wage is indeed not socialist, but full out communist.
You see it has been tried. In several countries. In the USSR they had maximum salaries. They had the exact view that Ryan had. They though no one should earn over a certain amount as a salary.
It failed. It was a disaster.
Ryan seems to think we live in isolation from the world. I’d love to see him find a surgeon to operate on him, should he need it, with a $200,000 salary cap. They’d all be in Australia.
Related posts:
- Minto advocates 100% tax rate
- Key on youth minimum wage
- Under $50,000 and maximum 18% tax
- The starting out wage
October 17th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Why would you give someone this half-witted any more air time than the Herald already has?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
No problem. We just build a wall to “protect us from the lure of capitalism”. Worked for the DDR.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
I stopped at the word “Waikato”.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Ryan seems to think we live in isolation from the world. I’d love to see him find a surgeon to operate on him, should he need it, with a $200,000 salary cap. They’d all be in Australia.
No – maximum salary, not maximum incomes. Good surgeons would form companies, which would be paid fees, and they’d keep the dividends, earning similar to what they are now, but probably with tax advantages.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Most surgeons are already heading to Australia.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Excellent idea from Ryan.
I have advocated for a maximum salary of $320,000 on this blog before, but $200,000 seems equally sensible.
There is no need for people to earn obscene salaries.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
It has been tried with punitive income tax rates over a certain level.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Why not earn an obscene slary Hamnida?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
You earn $650,000 plus as a consultant in Australia.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Do remember, as I have pointed out before – this is no different from what John Minto wants.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/09/minto_advocates_100_tax_rate.html
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
I don’t mean to spam, but there is something about the cult of socialism that brings out the troll in me.
Vote:You couldn’t live where I live on a mere $200,000 a year hamnida. How exactly does that make me a bad person?
Read Atlas Shrugged but flag the monotonous end. that might allow you to glimpse the truth through the glass of kool-aid.
Why does a student get airtime in the Herald? they know fuck all.I should say, they’re all socialist and they know fuck all.
October 17th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Define obscene Ham, oh wait its a subjective term, which essentially means for Ham, “more than i could ever earn in my life”.
there is nothing intrisically wrong with envy, if its used as motivation to lift yourself.
i am envious of that guys fitness level, i will work out more to try and achieve the same
i am envious of that guys social skills, i will work on my skills in that area to emulate him
i am envious of that guys income, i will work harder, study more, start a business to try and earn as much.
i have no problem with that kind of envy. but the nasty, vicious and downright sad envy that this ‘student’ and fellow travellers like ham have is just plain wrong. its the envy that says, i am envious of what that person has, so i will take it off him so he also does not have it.
and this is supposed to help society? forcing people to have less, to earn less?
at least i am glad that this student is a history student and not economics.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Is pretty much equivalent to saying “there is no need to do anything I don’t like” which implies that you’re smarter than everyone else and we should cede all decision making to you. Aspirations of being a Great Leader?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Who says so? Are you a communist?
What about the 500K your idol comrade Clark earns at the U.N.? Do you consider it obscene?
You can almost see Ryan Wood, this “student”, wearing sandals and a Maori tiki. Waikato University should be ashamed of people like him.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
“There is no need for people to earn obscene salaries”
lmao spot the dude who isn’t making one.
as for the doofus who wrote the letter – lmao at him too. sounds like the sort of guy who sits there going “the ceo does nothing! they couldnt survive if i wasnt here to wash his car” etc etc
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
The comments above are very disturbing in the sense people appear to think earning over $200,000 a year is acceptable while 270,000 children live in poverty.
Get real! We live on a series of islands. Just because some people earn $13.50 an hour (soon to be $10.80) doesn’t make this problem go away. Giving the CEO of Telecom a massive tax cut doesn’t help either.
I can see no rationale reason why earning over $200,000 a year is remotely acceptable in 21st Century New Zealand.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
If I need a heart operation, I most certainly hope the guy who does it is paid handsomely for his expertise and all the years he spent training.
If I have a stake in a major company that is undergoing major changes and there are only 3 guys in the world who are proven to be able to lead a company through such changes without wiping billions off it’s value then I am happy to have that guy paid for the value he brings.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
I can see no rationale reason why earning over $200,000 a year is remotely unacceptable in 21st Century New Zealand.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Hilarious.
200k isn’t even that much.
You’re certainly not rich on 200k a year, although ,someone on 40k a year might think so.
Rich is having personal assistants and travelling 1st class with your family to whereever you want and staying in 5* hotels.
You can’t do that on 200k a year.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
I love the part where he says they will have “no choice”.
Here’s me thinking that the more you are worth, the more choices you have.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
There’s no one but people like him at the peoples deomcratic republic of Te Wananga o Waikato.
Greame E and he have a bit of a point though about forming companies.
High paid public officials leaching on the taxpayer are another case entirely ….
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
You can colour it how you like hamnida but at the end of the day, what you are describing is just a perspective based on envy.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Sounds like a foundation member of the Monster Raving Looney Party.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
ham is right (barely) that brining in a maximum wage would reduce the level of children in poverty (as trite as the title is). but only becuase poverty is defined as a relative position to the median wage. it would not actually change a thing for those people.
So Ham has the typical left response. fuck over a bunch of people in an attempt to help your core, but dont actually help them in any way.
very ‘progressive’ of you.
also, you are a fucking idiot. anyone earning 13.50 an hour now is not going to end up on 10.80. but nice try with your blatant lie.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Worse than that Monique he’s too thick to realise his attittude (tall poppy syndrome) is why NZ is in the shit.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Looks like all the senior management jobs will go to Australia, leaving only middle-tier ones in NZ reporting to them under this model…
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Monique- “Why does a student get airtime in the Herald? they know fuck all.I should say, they’re all socialist and they know fuck all.”
Agreed- A long time ago when I was a student even I was ‘left-leaning’ politically. Then I got out into the real world and realised how things tick… I laugh at how naive I was in those days (when living in my little sheltered world at University)
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
I must confess that the “National proposed this” reference has me lost. What is he refering to?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Almost enough reason to cease funding of all tertiary education.
Well done that man.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
@Grendel – it wouldn’t reduce the number of children in poverty. It’s based on the median, not the mean. The median doesn’t change when you lop off the top.
@Ham – start off by spelling rational right, then I’ll think about listening to you. Actually, no, I won’t.
The really funny bit is that the mechanics of this don’t work – so not only does this guy have a stupid idea, the way he proposes to implement it won’t work. So I’m the CEO of a company, earning $1M a year (I wish). I now have to “start a company, earning dividends instead.” So my employer instead just gives me shares. Problem solved. Or I start a company that then contracts to my previous employer for the services of “being CEO”. Or I move to Australia where the head office probably is anyway. The good news is that accountants would be able to be paid much more as they work out how to avoid this stupidity, and tax lawyers more still (both govt lawyers and private sector ones) as they fight it out in the courts.
Oh, and how will this go for the All Blacks? Much chance of us retaining the rule that you have to play your rugby in NZ if you want to play for the All Blacks?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
paulL – bahahahahahaha @ all blacks. outstanding.
hes probably the sort that hates rugby though.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
This is just populist posturing over middle-people’s inability to contextualise salaries. Even today where we see the $7xx,xxx that CEOs of SOEs etc make, the public bemoans it – and the market-liberals say ‘well, that’s the market’.
The frustration is miguided, it’s not that salaries are too big that is really an issue; the issue is how we value human resources and what we use as indicators of value.
Socialist or left-leaning people ought to redirect their policy-push not for arbitrary lines in the remuneration-sand, but towards a re-assessment how labour is valued as a cost-of-production and a necessity for the firm in the capitalist framework.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
In plain English: Socialism sucks!
Vote:nocommentkiwi, are you an academic?
October 17th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Hon David Shearer & Co LLC, labour representative for Mt Albert.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Ha, you are right Paull, i thought it was the mean salary. wow the relative poverty is even dumber than i thought. i blame the delayed bruising from getting my blackbelt on saturday for forgetting how mean and median work.
So for Hams idea to actually work, a whole bunch of people have to leave NZ. when what would probably happen is that you would end up with a couple of CO CEOS etc working part time, thus raising the number of people at the top and raising the median, therefore ‘increasing poverty’.
Scrub, what the article is trying to imply is that by National proposing the starting wage, which allows someone to work on less than minimum wage for a time, national is somehow already instigating a maximum wage. the number of errors in that statement from the history student are horrific.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
When you think it through it is quite an interesting idea – given he is talking about salaries and not incomes. It would mean the talented workers who make big salaries today would have to be offered shareholdings to boost their income and actually have skin in the game.. It would mean that Government departments would have to be privatised because some people would not work for less than 200k and thus become disfunctional without reform. It is a libertarians dream of small govt (and no need for so high taxes) and nationwide shareholding.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
> You earn $650,000 plus as a consultant in Australia
No, a consultant is paid $650k. Whether they “earn” their pay is another matter.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
As the article notes:
“What did [Paul] Reynolds do to become the $6 million man? It is something of a mystery. Under his leadership, Telecom dropped from top place on the NZSX – a position it had occupied since 1991 – following the XT debacle in 2010…Share prices plummeted. Reynolds’ response was to go fishing. Despite all this, Reynolds was, according to the Herald, earning $34,000 a day during the 2012 financial year.”
I think I’m going to go fishing and ask my boss for a pay rise.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
i have no doubt you barely earn your 13.50 an hour ross.
you really are a jealous little twerp are you not? you have no factual argument against an income of 650K a year, so you have to get all whiny and try and claim some moral, subjective value for earning that money that the person clearly fails in your world view.
for me its simple, if person A agrees to give person B $x for a job and person B fulfills that agreement, they have earned it.
now it gets a bit sticky when its mates passing around tax payers money, but if a private individual or company wants to give away their money to someone for work, thats their business, and none of the business of ross and the other socialists.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Hamnida – me and my fiance are early thirties, and our gross income including investments is currently $230,000 a year.
We are expected to pay for our own retirements (only a naive person would expect government super to be around in 30 years), and our toddler son will cost many thousands a year in education costs over the next 20 years or so (already 3 days a week of daycare is about $7,000 a year in costs) – and we want to have two more children on top of that shortly.
Once GST and all the stealth taxes are added in to the mix we are paying about 60k a year in tax. Our investments/home also cost us 90k a year in interest and expenses on top of that to run.
On top of that my fiance has a 50k student loan that she is paying off.
We have life insurance, income protection insurance, mortgage protection insurance, private health insurance, property and contents insurance for several properties, car insurance and landlord insurance – adding further thousands onto our costs.
These are the realities of the modern world and are what it takes to look after you family.
We don’t sit around complaining about how much things cost, we go out there and work our butts off and do our hardest to be successful and to prepare ourselves for the future so if anything bad happens we can look after ourselves.
Your complete lack of understanding of how the modern world works is a worry.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
You could set up an “earnings evaluation committee” where you can judge people on your value set as to whether they “deserved” their renumeration or not. You could give out awards yearly to people who you think were remunerated inline with you value set. You could make little statuettes and call them “Rossies”.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Ok so CEO salaries have been rising at around 15% per year over the last two decades and of course you all support it
Vote:Does anyone see the problem with this? is the share market rising at the same rate? if not what are we(shareholders) paying for ,above average performance or remuneration capture by a self-serving sector?.
October 17th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
“Hey Elijah, Peter Jackson here. I’ve got some good news and some bad news. We’d like to cast you in the three Hobbit films, but unfortunately Hamnida and some tool at Waikato University have decided that we can only pay you $200k … Yeah, $200k NZD, so about what a decent computer programmer makes in Australia … No, I’m not taking drugs, this really is what some people in NZ think.”
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
bloody hell, share price is a perception of value, not actual value or work done. if the share price dropped by he raised profits, then who cares. and if ross and this kid are not shareholders of telecom, its none of their business.
its the business of the board of telecom and reynolds.
but since we are judging, tell me what holly walker, gareth hughes, jacinda ardern, catherine delahunty did to ‘earn’ their salaries? or is it because they are on the left its ok to be useless?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Shareholders telling their CEOs to perform or FO (which they should) is a completely different matter Griff.
I wish we could do that for government.
seanmaitland – an excellent summary of what young people are up against but the Hamnidas of this world expect you to pay for them too.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
No, it wouldnt.
Talented workers working for publicly traded companies dont pile all their salary into shares in the company they work for. Why would they do it after that most stupid of policies was implemented?
Here are ten things that would be more likely to happen.
1. Wives and children and pets would be “hired” to overcome the shortfall.
Vote:2. Cars, houses, etc would be provided by the company.
3. People would get paid into overseas accounts.
4. Salaries do not include bonuses, so people would be offered these generous and easy to attain bonuses
5. Companies will issue the equivalent of preference shares that rank before all other liabilities. These would be routinely repurchased by the company.
6. As mentioned above, people will become consultants and have their “company” paid instead.
7. Unless the $200k is judged at the individuals level rather than the company level, then rolling contracts to the value of $200k for a couple months work would become the norm.
8. People worth $400k would only work 6 months a year.
9. Everyone would be paid $200k from their first real job. They will recieve only a portion in cash, with the remaining balance being stored in a separate account. Firms that employ the individual would be able to “recover” the unpaid balance when the employee leaves the company from the new company. Alternatively, what we call “raises” today would merely be unlocking some of the stored value in the account. In their early years, employees will accumulate a large credit which can be used later in life to increase the cash portion of payments.
10. As also mentioned above, anyone worth more the $200 would fuck off overseas.
October 17th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
It can only be made to work if you shoot anyone trying to leave the country.
FFS this ideology has been comprehensively demonstrated not to work if implemented, even if the borders are closed.
I remember the 70′s, my dentist was almost never available. He only did enough work each week to reach the 66% tax bracket, then hived off home to garden for the rest of the week – it wasn’t worth working for the amount you were left with.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Kevin said: “Shareholders telling their CEOs to perform or FO (which they should) is a completely different matter Griff.
I wish we could do that for government.”
We can. Its called voting.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
It can only be made to work if you shoot anyone trying to leave the country.
FFS this ideology has been comprehensively demonstrated not to work if implemented.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Grendel … whisper when you say “thank goodness he is a history student …” Remember Dr The Right Honourable Michael Cullen was a history student.b We have nothing to be thankful for in that quarter.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
This would seem only to affect those employed in the civil service. In private enterprise it would become business as usual to structure matters such that while only a $200k salary was paid, other benefits would change hands and very probably attract less tax (unintended consequence?).
Vote:This wouldn’t be possible in the civil service, so we’d find CEO’s at MFAT and ACC etc take a massive pay cut. They seem to be doing a pretty sucky job anyway, so let them go and market themselves in the private sector and replace them with cheaper muppets.
October 17th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
C-
Interesting idea, but the discussion ignores several important issues.
See me after the class.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
RRM
You mean because he didnt mention Marx, I assume?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
It both amazes and disappoints me that people think earning over $200,000 p/a is acceptable while others earn $13.50 an hour (soon to be $10.80).
It says something about how some people think and where your priorities for society are.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
So Hamnida by your warped logic a toilet cleaner should be paid the same as a brain surgeon?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Hamnida –
You may have noticed that one of his ideas is that anyone currently pulling down over $200k would have to “start their own businesses where, as shareholders, they can indulge in the dividends they deserve”.
So he’s actually nowhere near as anti- “rich pricks” as you are, right? He just wants to force “rich pricks” to jump through a few (more) hoops, thereby creating a thriving industry in creative accounting as people try to maximise their income in the face of these silly, complex and pointless new laws.
Oh and BTW, someone earning $200k before tax is going to pay a lot more tax than someone earning $60k… tax that goes to supporting public hospitals, public schools, roads, people who can’t work, and people who can’t be fucked working. Why do you hate high income earners, again? What fight are you really fighting here, and on whose behalf?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
A maximum wage is different to a maximum income.
If someone is entrepreneurial then start or buy a business and receive earnings from the profit. The problem is that high salaries are paid to people for working (and often not very successfully)
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
“It says something about how some people think and where your priorities for society are.”
youre right. its not fair my westie buddies who stayed on the dole for the first 15 years after they left high school don’t earn the same as me. its just not fair wah wah wah
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Ham-fisted Says:
> It both amazes and disappoints me that people think earning over $200,000 p/a is acceptable while others earn $13.50 an hour (soon to be $10.80).
Idiot.
Vote:Peoples current wages cannot be reduced. Your scaremongering about those currently on the minimum wage is a crock of shit. And the new proposed youth rate is only for those currently un-employed, for a maximum of 6 months at which point they get a rise to the minimum.
But obviously you are another dickhead who would prefer unemployed youth don’t get the job opportunities that this policy will provide. Do you prefer them to stay un-employed and on the dole? Is that how you prefer to support them?
October 17th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
“Waikato history student Ryan Wood…”
And it should be Christmas every day, and broccoli should be banned!
Okay Ryan.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
So, ross:No, a consultant is paid $650k. Whether they “earn” their pay is another matter.
You’d be happy with a consulting specialist opening you up paid $40K a year? Or $100K? $200? Where is your happy point oh red one? You can join hammy in his socialist utopia
Me, Im more than happy that CEO’s get paid a shit load – because otherwise, morons would lead companies to failure within months. Ref., the USSR with nails holding washing machines together so that quotas could be reached. But then according to the left, ANYONE can be a CEO, right? Sorry, fail on that. They cant. Been working with a whole bunch of them for years. The best are the ones that know they are leaders, not managers, but then you know that, right?
As for consulting specialists, worth every penny and more. Come back and argue the point when you’ve been in for an emergency life threatening procedure in Pyongyang.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
While the concept of a maximum wage is absurd, so is your example
If a surgeon puts his/her own personal benefit over contribution to the country, they are a traitor to NZ. The problem is that we have normalised this – we do not call them cowards when they chase their 40 pieces of silver instead of building NZ – we accept selfishness
Qualitatively, it is no different to collaboration or Quislingism. Instead of doing everything you can for your country, you look after number one.
I thought humanity had evolved past that
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
“If a surgeon puts his/her own personal benefit over contribution to the country, they are a traitor to NZ.”
Did I miss a meeting?
When did NZ become a totalitarian slave state?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
I would wager that a lot of the right wing “rich prick” commenters on this blog have earned at both extreme ends of the scale at different times in their lives, I certianly have.
Earning SFA for a while and being on the bones of ya arse is a great motivator !
and lets face it $200K really aint much. your not going to be driving a lambo on that are you. even a used one.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
You didnt get the memo wat?
“Despite the random nature of birth, all effort must go towards (sing with me) The Greater Good of the Motherland”
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
I’d be interested to know Haminida and Ross’s opinions, assuming this actually would apply to them.
So assuming, by the level of their intellect*, they earn $25,000/year.
Would either of you have any problem if this was capped at $15,000? Same job, same hours but $10K less. This $10K will go to someone who currently works 1 day/week and gets paid $5000/year. The job you do isn’t important, you both deserve the same because we’re all equal.
Any problems? This is exactly what you’re advocating. So answer honestly.
*This assumption can be made looking at a wide range of posts, but also just by their comments on this post, promoting a policy previously tried that comprehensively failed.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Inky says:
A maximum wage is different to a maximum income.
If someone is entrepreneurial then start or buy a business and receive earnings from the profit………………………………
Makes no difference, as soon as the profitable business earns buckets loads, the envy comes out and taxes the shit out of it thereby taking away any incentive to carry on and create- thats why our best and brightest head off shore, believe it or not there are places in the world where being wildly successful is not a sin or a crime.
Haminida
You can change your name Milky but you are still an attention seeking drip
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
wat dabney – “When did NZ become a totalitarian slave state?”
Ah, scheduled for 2014.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
As a Waikato alumnus this makes me fucking cringe
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
It’s nothing to do with being a “totalitarian slave state”
It’s about altruism vs. selfishness
When Germany invaded France in 1940, people had a choice. They could either oppose Germany – likely at great personal cost to themselves – thus putting France first. Or, they could collaborate: they could grow fat on the invader.
Now, while there are differences, the principle is the same. Doctors (or anyone) can either put New Zealand first, accept a lower personal benefit because it contributes more to New Zealand’s economic growth etc., or they can put themselves first. It’s not complicated.
JFK said “Ask what you can do for your country, not what your country can do for you,” and the principle is the same.
Either you are selfish, or you aren’t. If you are selfish, don’t pretend to be patriotic.
** The exception to this rule being those who go overseas to remit hard currency back home. They are doing a doubly valuable task: strengthening NZ, and weaking whatever country they work in
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
It is interesting that you Neolibs hammer on about getting the minimum wage down, but as soon as someone even mentions a maximum wage (let alone lowering a maximum wage), you shake in your boots.
Is it really necessary to earn more than $200,000 a year? That’s a lot of money while 270,000 children live in poverty. It’s a big salary to “earn” while the minimum wage is $10.80 an hour.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Haminida
“I can see no rationale reason why earning over $200,000 a year is remotely acceptable in 21st Century New Zealand.”
Really?…how about I give you $60,220 reasons why this is acceptable.
Without people earning over $200,000 there would be no tax payer funded money to hand out to parasites and bludgers.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
With this same mentality, one could advocate a maximum amount of alcohol per annum to purchase, a maximum amount of meat to purchase, a maximum anything. Instead, you should be setting up a brewery, in which case, you’re allowed to drink as much as you want. What bunch of Commy nonsense.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Waikato university…
Vote:Say no more – you just know its going to be nonsense.
October 17th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
“If a surgeon puts his/her own personal benefit over contribution to the country, they are a traitor to NZ.”
I wonder if the author of that stupid comment feels the same way about those thousands of parasites who have spent their life on the dole or the slappers on the DPB benefit?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Hamnida – you must live a life of misery and desperation. I don’t get anywhere near $250,000 a year, in fact probably less than half of that. But I don’t begrudge someone that does. It doesn’t affect me. You keep harping on about 270,000 children living in poverty when you know damn well that is figured by a meaningless arbitrary percentage of average income. If every person got a million dollar pay rise, there would still be 270,000 children under the poverty line. Thinking about it though, when the Greens/Labour start printing money we probably will all be getting millions per year – it will just be enough for a loaf of bread.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Brian Smaller- I think we may be wasting our time. It appears lefties like Ryan Wood and our friend Hamnida simply don’t ‘get’ Economics..
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Through all the social science and population health departments in universities such as waikato the government funds social and health research in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The conclusions always are that Maori and the poor are disadvantaged, that the government should spend more money on that area and that “more research is needed”. Why don’t they just write those conclusions in the first place and save all that money?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Definitely wasting time with Hamnida. He simply repeats the same factually incorrect post and ignores any questions or requests for clarification.
Hamnida, you’re welcome to a different opinion but please stop lying. Please respond, refute, do something. Stop copying and pasting the same lie.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
its this kind of bullshit thinking that had Liarbore set the company/trust and pers tax rates at different levels just so the accountants could take another $5k per year off me to reorganise my money!
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
I was an Accountant in Fletcher Challenge and CHH over the 90′s and early 2000′s, during that time our salaries went through the roof. This was the period that HR Departments in all large corporates worldwide suggested that executives place some of their salary “at risk”, what this meant was that we would get an additional 10% to 50% depending on our seniority. I struggled to understand what this meant by putting our salary “at risk”, but we took the extra money. I can say for the record that we made sure our Waged workers were only ever paid inflation based increases. I know I never deserved the large salary I received, nor the big increases year on year…all good.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
{citation required}, misleading.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Well said Big Bruv…….sock it to the parasite…
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Unlike my silly adolescent ramblings in the late eighties, Ryan Wood’s comments are permanent, for all time and I think he may live to regret them if he’s honest.
Ryan mate if you ever go and try for a proper job in the real world, I think the majority of employers are going to either not hire you, or offer you bugger all. So, self-prophecy.
It’s clearly a government job for him then!
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
So according to the socialist parasites individual people are the property of,and owe undying allegiance to “the state”……didn’t Kiwi soldiers go to fight and die to stop regimes that believed that evil poisonous nonsense…?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Waikato university only trains for government jobs. Policy analysts, equity officers, IT managers for WINZ, or in his case research officer in revisionist hstory at “their place”.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
I’m all for salary caps of circa $200,000 for those in public service jobs. Some of the salaries paid to civil servants by the taxpayer, are simply obscene.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
When you consider that the only pathway to medical practice is through state subsidised medical training, there’s an argument to be made that the state should be able to regulate the market for medical professionals.
It really shits me that we pay for students to undertake medical training then lose them as graduates when they head offshore.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Yuh haveta hand it to this ‘Hamnida’ – the basic theme is ‘broken record ‘ – repetition of the original albeit at increased volume.
And loved Annie’s comment aboot her dentist going gardening when the magic $ limit approached.
Wasn’t called John Galt, by any chance?
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
“It really shits me that we pay for students to undertake medical training then lose them as graduates when they head offshore.”
Bond them. Five years working for the state before they can leave, or pay back any loans and subsidies.
Vote:October 17th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Or you could pay them properly err duh.
Vote:October 18th, 2012 at 1:43 am
Or you could not have the government subsidise the education of those who’ll eventually earn lots of money. Ooops, lefties not in favour of that either.
Vote:October 18th, 2012 at 5:31 am
seanmaitland:
Good on you for working hard and being successful mate.
Your financial situation is slightly different to a lot of other folks. You’ve got a freakin property empire. Eg I know a lawyer who’s married with a young daughter…. they rent and don’t have any property investments. You might even be his landlord!!
You do know that people with property empires aren’t the norm, right?
SM says: *These are the realities of the modern world and are what it takes to look after you family.* What, before you start a family you need several investment properties? There wouldn’t be many bloody children floating about if that was true.
All of those costs are largely related to the property empire. Let’s face it, the rental income covers the investment expenses. Or most of it. Leaving you with your normal PAYE/ contractor (business?) income you’d have anyway.
Yeah, I wouldn’t complain about the cost of private health insurance either… that’s your choice to pay for something no-one’s forcing you to. In your world I’m sure… that’s a ‘basic necessity’.
And hey… tax free capital gains on all of those properties!! Well done!!
It gets a bit trickier when people jump online with property empires talking about what it all costs. Unless they throw open their financial state of affairs to the nth degree and would anyone do that? No. Properties can be the basis of LAQCs… they can run at a loss… investment income losses can be offset against gross assessable income derived for tax purposes… it’s not exactly as straightforward as bleating ‘we pay all these costs and don’t complain about it’. And anyway… you’ve taken on all of that to get ahead and good for you. You could’ve chosen to hack off one mortgage and the 50K loan and be debt free in nothing flat, but most wisely chose to go without more now to have much more later.
$60K tax on $230K gross? Why… that’s 26%. Including GST and everything else? Shit that’s ok, innit? One personal income of $230K would cop more than that from PAYE alone.
Vote:October 18th, 2012 at 7:56 am
I don’t think a surgeon becomes a surgeon ONLY because of how much money he can make. I would imagine that a surgeon, like many of us, chooses his career for a variety of reasons – maybe his dad was a surgeon, maybe he read a book on surgery and was fascinated by it, maybe – now here’s a radical thought – this “traitor to NZ” thought he could HELP people with these skills.
So he works hard. He studies hard, makes good grades at school, does his year at Otago University, completes his Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degree, works for a year as an intern in a hospital, completes ANOTHER six to eight years of specialist training and examinations, to become a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.
And after all this hard work, he can look forward to working long, irregular hours, including evenings, nights and weekends, in stressful conditions dealing with seriously ill or injured patients.
And the rewards for doing this? According to careers.govt.nz, registrars working for a DHB earn between $95,000 and $155,000 a year, and qualified surgeons working for a DHB earn between $130,000 and $200,000. That’s not actually a huge amount.
Let’s return to your original statement: “If a surgeon puts his/her own personal benefit over contribution to the country, they are a traitor to NZ.” So does a surgeon think only of himself? Of course anybody will know immediately that’s stupid, a surgeon is a human being like you (presumably) or me, maybe with a family that he does his best to provide for and make happy when he is at home and not working the night shift or at the weekend when his children would actually prefer Daddy was there with them.
But surgeons also tend to think about their patients. Huh. Fancy that. Here’s a quote from an orthopaedic surgeon:
So here’s a “traitor to NZ” who is actually helping other people to live better quality lives, maybe continue doing their job or leisure activities that they couldn’t previously. He’s fixing up kids with broken arms, older people with dicky hips, runners with knees that are ruined – and helping them to lead better lives.
What did YOU do for your fellow New Zealander yesterday, elscorcho?
Vote:October 18th, 2012 at 8:49 am
“Hamnida (789) Says:
October 17th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
It is interesting that you Neolibs hammer on about getting the minimum wage down, but as soon as someone even mentions a maximum wage (let alone lowering a maximum wage), you shake in your boots.
Is it really necessary to earn more than $200,000 a year? That’s a lot of money while 270,000 children live in poverty. It’s a big salary to “earn” while the minimum wage is $10.80 an hour.”
Wow you are a complete moron as far as your statements go.
However you are a pretty good forum troll, copy and pasting the exact same illogical rhetoric again and again just at the right time to get bites your so desire. Makes you feel like a big person right?
To be fair to all, if anyone is a traitor in NZ, its you and your kind. Determined to hold the entire country back for your socialist agenda. Your envy politics have no traction here. And stop spouting child poverty. There is NO child poverty in NZ. There is only parental neglect!
Vote:October 18th, 2012 at 9:02 am
When this young man actually gets a job after university (Waikato – well that answers it) he would be in a better position to comment.
Vote:But welcome to Greenpeace New Zealand Branch anytime, if he is not already a member.
October 18th, 2012 at 10:10 am
Sure, if they paid for their own training. But if they’ve trained largely funded by us, they can pay us back first.
Vote:October 18th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Seems to me everyone’s missing a key point here.
Never mind that some students in arts faculties lack real world experience, any understanding of economics and common sense and espouse ridiculous left wing views.
Not much has changed since I was at university in the early ’70s.
Never mind that some of the resident lefties in this forum support those arguments with abuse.
But why is the rag that thinks it’s NZ’s newspaper of record giving ink and paper to this wingnut?
Vote:October 18th, 2012 at 10:45 am
I can think of plenty of CEOs who would be doing the country a great service if they did exactly that, especially if we could swap them with the builders and engineers we have lost to Australia and other places as we grind down our internal wage levels.
A good place to start with salary levels would be the ridiculous sums of money we pay to public servants. The notion that the public service needs to compete with private enterprise is risible and disproved by the bastion of laissez faire, the US, where public service is more seen as a stepping stone to more lucrative private employment opportunities.
In the private realm, while I think Ryan made a mistake by nominating a figure, one option often mentioned is to peg the CEO and other officeholders salaries to the lowest paid staff member. We could outlaw CEOs holding shares in the company employing them because the proof is pretty solid that said CEOs manipulate results to achieve the greatest personal rewards aka Jack Welch.
Bonuses can be catered for simply: shareholders who vote for a bonus pays the bonus privately in proportion to the number of shares held. I doubt the Paul Reynolds of this world (whose main attributes are to be tall, easy on the eye and articulate) would still get paid fantastic rewards for almost running companies into the ground, as happens in some cases before they are moved on.
So there is no need for hysterical appeals to the horrors of communism or Nazis or Pol Pot or…(insert pet hate fetish of choice) when regulation of the activities of private companies is taken as read, anyway, and no-one would claim we live in a communist environment – except the loons here and in the tiny world of Peter Cresswell and his ilk!
Telecom, though, is an especially outstanding offender in outrageous pay for CEOs – the traitor Rod Deane, who oversaw systemic disservice to New Zealand during his reign a prime example.
Vote:October 18th, 2012 at 10:55 am
The adage “pay peanuts, get monkeys” really just passed you by didn’t it Luc?
[Not to mention the fallacies that i) we pay public servants ridiculous sums of money and ii) that the public service in NZ is a stepping stone to lucartive private sector employment.]
Vote:October 18th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
I completely support a sensible and healthy minimum wage. Around $15 seems about right, but since I’m not an economist I’ll defer to other’s opinion on the actual rate. I am a left-leaning socialist in the most part, and believe in a powerful government-provided safety net for citizens.
A maximum wage seems stupid though, and reeks of jealousy of other’s income. I earn somewhere near that theoretical maximum suggested, and I’m not a CEO or anything like it – just an software engineer. I certainly don’t think of myself as particularily wealthy, but I’m able to earn what I do because I *worked hard* to earn a degree in a practical and relevent subject, and I have many years of experience working in the industry. I earned little more than minimum wage at the start of my career (in the late 90′s), but I worked hard and built a knowledge base that makes my skills highly sought-after now. To tell me or anyone in my position that there’s a ceiling would only encourage me to go overseas.
Vote:October 18th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
He lost any credibility when he said that reducing the top wages and using the saved money to pay the lower earners more would increase the average wage of company employees. Not quite how averages work there…
Vote:October 18th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
“Of course anybody will know immediately that’s stupid, a surgeon is a human being like you (presumably) or me, maybe with a family that he does his best to provide for and make happy when he is at home and not working the night shift or at the weekend when his children would actually prefer Daddy was there with them.”
Animals put their family first. I thought humanity had evolved past that point and actually held some things like the country or particular ideals more important.
And we aren’t talking about the difference between life or death here. A medical doctor still earns a VERY comfortable life here – he/she can still pay little Johnny’s Kings fees. If he/she wants more, he/she IS putting his/her own benefits above the state.
Like I said, if you want to go overseas, fine, but accept that it is a SELFISH decision. It isn’t illegal (and shouldn’t be), but it is SELFISH.
And caring for some other country’s sick… who the f*** cares? They aren’t kiwis.
Vote: