Labour supporters want tax hikes even if they bring in no more revenue

February 3rd, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Daniel Hannan writes in the Telegraph:

Ponder the graph above. Sixty-nine per cent of [UK] Labour supporters would want a top rate tax of 50 per cent even if it brought in no money.

I’m sure they’d dispute the premise. I’m sure they’d insist that it did bring money in. And, on one level, they’d believe it; it’s human nature to start with the result we want and then rationalise it to ourselves with what look like hard data. I think their rationalisation would be false, obviously – once the behavioural consequences of the tax are factored in, it becomes a net drain on revenue – but I might be subject to my own confirmation bias in the other direction.

Anyway, this isn’t a blog about the statistics – I’ve already posted one of those. No, this is a blog about the mind-set of people who see taxation, not as an unpleasant necessity, but as a way to punish others.

This is amazing. Over two thirds of UK Labour supporters want higher taxes, even if those higher taxes did not produce more revenue for the Government.

I wonder what the percentage would be in NZ?

Envy is an ugly and debilitating condition, but it seems to have an evolutionary-biological basis. The dosage varies enormously from individual to individual, but even toddlers often display a sense that, if they can’t have something, no one else should either. If they had the vocabulary, they would doubtless, like the 69 per cent of Labour supporters, explain that emotion “on moral grounds”. Few toddlers, and few Labour voters, openly admit to being actuated by vindictiveness.

Hannan also touched on inequality:

I accept that there are advantages in homogenous, Nordic-type societies. Huge inequalities of wealth can lead to higher stress levels, higher crime rates and weaker social engagement (oddly, the people who deploy these arguments in support of economic homogeneity almost never extend them to multiculturalism, but that’s another story).

The case against state-enforced equality is not that a narrowing of the wealth gap is in itself a bad thing; it’s that it carries a disproportionate cost in terms of lost prosperity and lost freedom.

Wealth taxes make societies more equal; but they do so by making them less prosperous. We can push plutocrats into shifting their money abroad. We can drive hedgies to Singapore or Switzerland. We can, more prosaically, make entrepreneurs spend more time with their accountants and less creating jobs. We can encourage by far the most common forms of legal tax avoidance: shorter hours and earlier retirement. All these things will make our country more equal. All of them will make it poorer.

And be careful with what you wish for:

Following the credit crunch, inequality fell. City salaries plummeted, average salaries fell slightly, benefits stagnated. In other words, the 69 per cent got their way: Britain became poorer and more equal. Yet, in the event, it was Labour supporters who moaned loudest. There’s no pleasing some people.

The focus should be on economic growth. If you grow the pie, then you get better options as to how to divide it up. Taking more tax off hard working taxpayers so you can give it parents earning $140,000 does not grow the pie.

Tags: , ,

Labour’s binding policy is to have “equality of outcomes”

August 7th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Labour has just released the final draft of their policy platform, for adoption by their annual conference.

It is meant to be a high level document that sets out their principles, and the manifesto must be consistent with it. Despite, this they have managed to make it 60 pages long!

There’s a lot in there I can and will comment on, over time. But the part which I think is the most newsworthy is their policy platform on equality which reads:

Labour believes that social justice means that all people should have equal access to social, economic, cultural, political, and legal spheres regardless of wealth, gender, ethnicity, or social position. Labour says that no matter the circumstances of our birth, we are each accorded equal opportunity to achieve our full potential in life. We believe in more than just equal opportunities—we believe in equality of outcomes.

People need to reflect on just how extreme this is. They are saying that New Zealand must have equality of outcomes. Everyone earning the same, working the same, maybe even weighing the same.

There is a philosophy that proposes equality of outcomes. It has been trialed in numerous countries, and failed in all of them. Without being melodramatic – it is communism. Their basic principle was that a doctor should be paid the same as a street cleaner.

This is the fundamental divide between centre-right and well hard left. Equality of opportunity is goal that almost everyone agrees with and aspires to. Equality of outcome is, well nuts. Name one country that has equality of outcomes – unless it is equal misery.

Their explicit commitment to equality of outcomes, is significant for what they see as the role of the state – which is basically unlimited. If you believe in equality of outcomes, then every single policy that involves state intervention can be justified so long as it leads to more equal outcomes.  A party which has said that their binding policy goal is equality of outcomes, sees no or little room for choice. If people make bad choices, then that leads to unequal outcomes – so they must be protected from those bad choices.

I think it is great that Labour have come out and said that they do not believe in equality of opportunity alone. It is another step to the hard left, that helps make them unelectable. New Zealanders do not believe in equality of outcomes. They believe in people being able to get ahead by hard work, and dedication. I can’t wait for the election debates when David Shearer has to get up and say that Labour’s core belief is equality of outcome, not just equality of opportunity.

And while this is a draft, this is a draft signed off by Grant Robertson and the Labour Party Policy Council. Under Labour’s rules it will, if adopted, be binding on the Labour Party. Caucus will not be able to come up with policy inconsistent with it. This shows the same sort of thinking as came up with the man ban – a classic example of Labour’s fixation with equality of outcome, over opportunity.

Tags: ,

Equality at work

November 16th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Food News reports:

A school lunch lady in Falun, Sweden has been told by education authorities to get in step and stop serving better quality meals than lunch ladies at other schools.

Horrific. That means there is no food equality. It is not fair kids at one school get better meals than kids at another school.

She has been told to stop baking her own bread in favour of the store-bought version and to reduce the range of vegetables she offers in her now famous vegie buffets.

In spite of working within her budget, and meeting all health and nutrition standards, Annika Erikson has been told her super lunches are unfair on students at other schools, and she must stop such anti-social behaviour immediately.

Yes, initiative and excellence are anti-social behaviour.

Katarina Lindberg, head of the authority which overseas school meals in the region, told local news media, “A menu has been developed. …It is about making a collective effort on quality, to improve school meals overall and to try and ensure everyone does the same.”

Oh yes the collective effort, This is the same collective effort that argues against performance pay for excellent teachers because it is all about the collective effort.

Another article on this has a great quote:

The “same,” even if everyone is worse off. Or as Winston Churchill put it, “socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”

Equality, comrades!

Tags: ,

Robinson on equality

January 9th, 2012 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Martin Robinson writes in the NZ Herald:

New Zealand rugby players come in all ages, shapes and sizes, and both sexes. Players vary greatly as regards their skill levels, commitment and training schedules. Rewards for players are extraordinarily unequal, as most actually pay to play while a very few are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Is this fair or unfair? Should the Labour Party, the Greens or the Occupy Auckland movement campaign for more-equal payment of rugby players? Should the “greedy” All Blacks be forced to hand over some of their colossal income to the more impoverished fellow players? Should the Government intervene to reduce this glaring disparity in rewards?

Reducing the pay of All Blacks and spreading it among the less well rewarded rugby players, even if it is a good idea in theory, poses immense practical problems. Would the All Blacks agree to a significant pay cut? If they did, the team would become a 2nd or 3rd XV of players who were willing to play for the reduced reward.

We would never beat the Aussies, and maybe the All Blacks team would disappear. So the equality campaign would have succeeded in narrowing pay differentials, but at the cost of destroying the world’s greatest rugby team.

But the players would finally all be equal.

Inequality and the poor will always be with us. People vary greatly in their talents, work ethic and attitudes. Some people are lucky, others are unlucky. Whatever any government does, the lucky and hard-working will tend to be wealthier than the unlucky and lazy.

Every family is unequal. Both my brothers are much richer than I am, but I don’t envy them or think there is anything unfair about it. I don’t regard them as greedier than I am.

I am the poor relation. If I had worked harder, invested more wisely and spent less time on holiday, I would have more money in the bank, but they are the choices I made. I don’t regret anything so I’m content with our financial inequality. When I met my brother on holiday on the Gold Coast, I stayed in a motel-cum-backpackers while he stayed in the Sheraton.

He should have complained to the Government that his brother had been too successful.

New Zealand is an unequal society, just like every human society, just like every family. An equal society is impossible, an unworkable nightmare involving zero incentives and gross unfairness. Why should a cleaner be paid the same as a surgeon? It’s a ridiculous idea. I’ve cleaned toilets at the minimum wage but I don’t think it was unfair that I was paid less than when I was a teacher.

The All Blacks and some chief executives earn mega-salaries but they also pay stacks of tax. New Zealand’s tax and benefit system transfers many billions of dollars from rich Kiwis to poor Kiwis year after year.

In fact if you have a couple of kids you don’t even pay net tax until you earn around $55,000 or more.

The way to reduce poverty in New Zealand is to increase exports, improve workers’ skills and productivity, create more wealth and jobs, and then raise the minimum wage.

If New Zealand is becoming more unequal, the answer is for us poorer ones to work and save harder and smarter in order to even things up.

How outraegous. He has overlooked that it is all society’s fault.

Tags: ,

Gaps over time

June 7th, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Red Alert posted this great video.

When you watch the video, recall how the Greens argue against economic growth, because they say its rob the world of resources. They argue for greater income equality, such as the world had 200 years ago.

Tags:

Inequality vs Social Mobility

May 24th, 2010 at 9:38 am by David Farrar

The left tend to measure most things by talking about inequality, and how anything that increases inequality is bad. Inequality, being the gap between those on the lowest incomes and the highest incomes.

This of course means that most of the focus grows on how to divide up the cake, rather than grow the cake.

But even putting that to one side for a moment, I want to make the case for focusing on social mobility rather than merely inequality.

In many cases inequality is a normal and good thing. It is a good thing that a 50 year old with 30 years of experience gets paid more than a 16 year old with no experience.

It is also a good thing that someone who spends six years at medical school and four years of specialisation gets paid more than say a parliamentary researcher.

For the vast majority of New Zealanders, they start their working life earning a lot less then they finish it. And this is good – otherwise you extra skills and experience are not valued.

So I reject many measures of income equality as unsophisticated and even counter productive.

The measure that I would like more emphasis placed on is social mobility. I don’t have a problem with a 19 year old earning $10 an hour as a kitchen hand if when they are 30 they are earning say $25 an hour as a cook. However I will agree that someone who spends their life earning just $10/hour is going to have a relatively deprived life.

But for me the solution is not to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour, but to have a society and a labour market which will help people on $10/hour gain skills and experience so they move up the pay scale.

In the UK social mobility has historically been difficult with such a class ridden society. In New Zealand I think it is far less so. Few people really care about where you were born (unless it was Palmerston North) and what your parents did.

In a society with very low levels of social mobility, I can understand why reducing inequality is more important. But in a society which does have opportunities, I want the emphasis to go increasing social mobility, rather than merely the blunt instrument of inequality. If you take inequality to extreme measures, then you end up like the old USSR where cleaners and surgeons get paid much the same.

The data on social mobility in NZ is fairly sparse – partly because you have to measure it over extended periods of time. But that is where I would like more focus to go.

Tags: ,