Written By:
Incognito - Date published:
8:24 am, June 1st, 2023 - 64 comments
Categories: benefits, budget 2023, cost of living, equality, inequality, tax, welfare -
Tags: redistribution, tax cuts, universalism, wealth distribution
In recent years, many people in Aotearoa – New Zealand have been struggling with the rising costs of living, especially in areas such as housing, health care, education, and transport. These costs have outpaced the growth of wages and incomes, making it harder for people to afford their basic needs and aspirations and many of us are feeling the pinch. This has led to a widespread sense of frustration and dissatisfaction among the population, and to a demand for policy solutions that can address this crisis. Arguably, the Government has made only small steps towards this in Budget-2023 that will only alleviate the economic pressures for some but certainly not all people – there was not enough fiscal wriggle room to please everyone.
Some politicians and pundits say that tax cuts are the answer. They argue that tax cuts can stimulate economic growth, increase disposable income, and reduce government intervention. They claim that tax cuts can benefit everyone, especially the middle class who are feeling the squeeze of the cost-of-living crisis. Obviously, there is some truth in their claims.
But tax cuts may not be the best solution for this problem. In fact, tax cuts may have negative effects on two important values that underpin a fair and prosperous society: inequality and universalism.
Inequality is the gap between the rich and the poor, or how income and wealth are distributed in a society. Universalism is the extent to which social benefits are available to all citizens regardless of their income or other factors.
Sam Sachdeva wrote (https://www.newsroom.co.nz/8things/budget-2023-hipkins-pragmatic-push-puts-national-in-tight-spot) that Chris Hipkins is continuing with Labour’s inclination towards universalism in entitlements.
Inequality and universalism are closely related to each other, and they are influenced by the design and implementation of welfare policies. Welfare policies can be either universal or targeted. Universal welfare policies provide social benefits to all citizens regardless of their income or other criteria. Targeted welfare policies provide social benefits only to the poor or the neediest groups based on means testing or other criteria. One might think that targeted welfare policies are more effective and efficient in reducing poverty and inequality than universal welfare policies. After all, targeting the poor means that more resources are directed to those who need them the most, right?
Wrong!
This is where the paradox of redistribution comes in. The paradox of redistribution is a concept that was proposed by two Swedish scholars, Walter Korpi and Joakim Palme, in a famous paper published in 1998 (https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/160846/1/lis-wps-174.pdf).1 They argued that welfare states that target social benefits exclusively at the poor tend to achieve less redistribution and reduce less income inequality and poverty than welfare states that provide universal social benefits to all citizens.
This may seem counterintuitive, but Korpi and Palme explained that targeting the poor has several drawbacks that undermine its redistributive potential. For example:
On the other hand, universal social benefits have several advantages that enhance their redistributive potential. For example:
Based on these arguments, Korpi and Palme concluded that universalism is a more effective strategy of equality than targeting. However, there have been subsequent challenges of Korpi and Palme’s paradox, mostly in academic circles. It is a relevant and important topic that has implications for policy design and evaluation in New Zealand.
Indeed, as Sam Sachdeva wrote:
Helpfully, universal benefits are also easier to sell to the wider population, and more difficult to scrap.
There are examples, of course, that show that New Zealand’s version of universalism has not achieved equity of outcomes for all, and that targeting has often been associated with negative consequences. Moreover, New Zealand’s tax system has also been criticised for being regressive and favouring wealth accumulation over income generation. Thomas Piketty, a renowned economist who has been advocating reforms to combat inequality, argues that inequality is bad for economic prosperity, as it undermines social cohesion, democratic participation, and human development.
So, what does this mean for tax cuts?
Tax cuts are often seen as a way to stimulate economic growth, increase disposable income, and reduce government intervention & interference. However, tax cuts may also have negative effects on inequality and universalism, such as:
Therefore, tax cuts may not be the best solution for addressing the cost-of-living crisis or improving the well-being of the population. Rather, it may be more effective and fair to invest in universal social benefits that can provide adequate and accessible support to all citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable or disadvantaged.
Of course, this does not mean that universalism is always superior to targeting or that tax cuts are always negative. There may be situations where targeting or tax cuts are justified or necessary depending on context or specific objectives. However, the point is to recognise pros & cons, have a constructive debate about it, and make informed & balanced decisions based on evidence, values, and principles that we, or most of us, can subscribe to and get behind.
This is why universalism matters. Universalism is not only a moral principle or an ethical ideal. It is also a practical strategy or an effective tool for achieving greater equality & well-being in society. It is not a Utopian dream or an unrealistic goal but a realistic possibility and an achievable outcome.
Universalism is not only good for you; it is good for everyone!
1In footnote 30: “In New Zealand private savings for old age in the form of home ownership has been encouraged (Davidson 1994).”
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
In the 2020 election campaign TOP advocated a UBI of $250 p/w ($13,000 p/y), and a flat tax rate of 33c/dollar. Both measures seemed fair: the UBI because every adult would be receiving it, and the flat tax because it would have applied to all income from any source. However, such an arrangement would mean that anyone earning less than $39,000 in income would effectively have been on a negative tax rate – tax at 33c per dollar on $39,000 is exactly $13,000.
It is no longer TOP policy. $250 is too low for those without employment and higher amounts were unaffordable.
https://www.top.org.nz/fair-tax-system
I went down that top policy rabbit hole…and there was a lot there to like..
My main concern with top is that they could go with the tories..
Australians pay no tax on their first $18,200 earned and it seems to work much more efficiently as a system than the government taking it as tax and then redistributing it.
They also have GST set at 10% which is a whole bunch less regressive than our at 15%.
Our most universally applied benefit is NZSuper. Any citizen can imagine how much better off they would be if their first NZSuper $18,000 were tax free, going to 1.4 million people.
They afford it with higher top rates of income tax, CGT, land taxes and stamp duty etc.
I'd be happy if we aligned our tax system with Australia's.
Higher top income tax, CGT, land taxes, and stamp duty are all pretty progressive tax moves.
Along with wages – given there is a effectively a single market now.
It helps that aussie is ine big open cast mine,
Wonder how they'll cope if they stopped digging up coal
Lots of lithium too, >50% of world production.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/chart-countries-produce-lithium-world/
Australia is opening up one of the world largest Lithium mines near Kalgoorlie – lots of very well payng jobs there.
What lithium mine is this, i.e., what’s the name of this lithium mine opening up?
How many “very well payng jobs” [sic] will it provide?
Please provide a link.
It may be this one – Kathleen Valley – near Kalgoorlie – which is projected to become operational in 2024.
https://www.ltresources.com.au/projects/kathleen-valley
With the sharply increased demand for lithium for batteries – the hard-rock extraction from Western Australia is economically feasible – although it's got a much higher carbon footprint than extraction from underground saltwater lakes.
Interestingly, the cost of development has skyrocketed over budget – and the company is blaming sharply increased labour costs among other inflationary factors)as a significant factor
https://www.kalminer.com.au/news/regional/kathleen-valley-lithium-project-cost-escalates-significantly-to-895-million-c-9506121
Archived here: https://archive.ph/wUwad
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/wa-mining-salaries-soar-higher-than-last-boom-as-skills-crunch-hits-20210928-p58ve8.html
This article was around 18 months ago – but there is no sign of salaries easing….
https://au.talent.com/salary?job=mining
The WA mines have always had to pay over the odds – even for unqualified work – since it's such a … pig … of a place to work. Offering FIFO contracts for skilled workers (though Covid put a bit of a dampener on that for Kiwis who couldn't get home for the FO bit) as well as very attractive salaries.
I have several youngish family members (early 20s) who are in trades who've gone over there to build up a solid nest egg – one is even a truck driver at a huge salary.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/130548989/the-australian-mining-company-hoping-to-lure-new-zealanders-with-150kplus-a-year
mining and other practices!!!
(comment 2)
Any chance labour could do any of that…?
UK GST almost Universal is now 20%.
Denmark when there was 25%
No, this is inaccurate.
https://www.gov.uk/vat-rates
AND also a transaction tax of say somewhere around 0.1% on all bank transactions/ turnover.
What would that raise?
Excellent post. More universalism please!
Poorer people are the (vast) majority in unequal societies, so universalism will naturally move wealth towards the poor.
I've noticed lately that the right wing are very keen on targeting and means testing. Sounds reasonable on the surface, but the main outcome is to allow the wealthy to not contribute to society.
Reading a biography of our most astute and most moral politician, Joe Savage, he was adamant on the idea of universal benefit entitlement.
As a swagman on the road in the 1880's Depression in Victoria, I think, when unemployement for men was 40%, he said he found means testing of benefits to give rise to terrible inequities. He gave the example of an old woman and her orphaned granddaughter having to sell their home and use that money to live, where a small benefit would have tided them over until the economic situation improved, and kept them in their own home.
And he commented on the demeaning sense of applying continually for a handout from the State, having to prove you are one of the 'deserving poor'.
He was also canny about universal benefits having universal electoral support. His government specifically dated the start of newer benefits to the April after the 1938 elections, to ensure a second Labour term.
We need to keep reminding newer generations and newer migrants of Savage's legacy of universalist economics, and its societal value. I personally took my son to Savage’s fey mausoleum overlooking the Waitemata harbour and gave him the talk.
Ta
100% agree.
The Germans have a concept that roughly translates to "greed brake", that limits high incomes from getting ridiculous, where anything above the threshold is returned to the state. Yes just a tax bracket, but what an honest term for it.
OH!!!! Good idea!!!!
Maybe Sabine or someone with more knowledge can remind us what that term is and a bit more bg info? I went looking for it a few times, but couldn't find it again.
Is it this one?
On top of income tax, the so-called solidarity surcharge (Solidaritätszuschlag or Soli) is levied at a rate of 5.5% of the income tax for higher incomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany
https://www.accountable.de/en/blog/solidarity-surcharge/
Solidarity surcharge! Now you're talking, comrade! 🚩🚩🚩✊✊✊
It is the why of public education and health and the former policy of a property owning democracy (where most would be able to own before retirement) or the availability of income related housing*.
We've yet to extend ACC to end poverty for those in sickness or with disability* (free prescriptions help as does improved Pharmac funding – which actually lowers subsequent health costs and makes employment possible).
This also covers healthy food in low decile schools and use of home gardens to supply them and or community food banks.
However in the neo-liberal economic society has emerged a class apart – home owners who holiday abroad, use private schools and have health insurance and income insurance and anticipate a rental and or air bnb holiday home once they get their next tax cut.
There was a division between two income parent families and sole parent families on the DPB (now mitigated by the WFF tax credits and the support for those with children under 5). Further action would be to allow the non working partner to get access to the dole* – work tested as per the DPB (also allows those on benefits to develop relationships with those who are working). Afforded by making it means tested at first (and it would reduce demand on housing).
There is also a need to reach out to the middle class with tax reform – tax revenue neutral changes (wealth tax and estate tax and higher top income tax rates). That would enable lowering the income tax on most and*(then bring in CGT and land taxes to sustain the public delivery of services and improve infrastructure).
More progressive taxes and universal services is one model and flatter taxes and targeted services is another model. We're the latter, Scandinavian countries are mostly the former. I'm definitely keen to see NZ move away from our current model to a more universal service approach.
The arguments that underwrote the last thirty years of neoliberal fantasy were largely that 'lowering tax takes will grow the pie and increase society's wealth over all'. This has been comprehensively debunked in practice. It's time to try something that actually works.
And that outright lie of the "trickle down effect" . Nact in NZ and the right wing world wide are still trying their utmost to spin it..
However..
Mmm – I have a feeling that the policy is not inherently impossible – but it requires governments that pursue it to be both scrupulous and rigorous in preventing the growth of inequality. They simply did not live up to the required standards.
Therein the flaw. And yes if only….but was never gonna happen.
There is this?
Of course there are (apparently) so many reasons NOT to do that ?…..
I do know that IMO Nact would screw NZ…..
We need a Government that is going to look at Tax logically, and aim at an equitable distribution of wealth.
Funny how the parties that advocate for less government don't seem to advocate for less politicians or cutting the cost of running parliament…
Well, we tried and won the battle, but lost the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_New_Zealand_MP_reduction_referendum
Neoliberal Con.
Partly perhaps.
But equally, a damning indictment of the weak and corruptible MPs that allowed the wholesale theft of public assets, and the weakening or removal of the prudent regulations that once constrained the incontinent greed of our lazy, parasitical, exploiter classes.
Been in politics in the last few decades? Hang your head in shame.
One of the measures we need is a Financial Activities Tax (FAT) so the banks that have been making obscene profits at the expense of New Zealanders have to pay some of it back.
I totally agree universalism is the answer, not just because it's extremely electorally popular (so the left should try it more) which means they almost never get rolled back, but also because they do the most good.
Universal dental for example is a program NZ desperately needs, would ease so much suffering and disease in NZ, would be a hugely popular program and cement whoever innacted it's legacy up there with Savage and Fraser.
It's relatively cheap, other nations health systems fund it and most kiwis wouldn't mind tax creep as much if the extra revenue was being used to fund things like universal dental, because it would really help everyone.
We're never going to get programs like that under the modern Labour party which has long jettisoned social democracy for watered down, mild liberalism.
Since Labour have no interest in universalism, I support tax cuts that benefit the poorest the most.
Get rid of gst off food or at least cut it down to 10%, personally I favor getting rid of the goods and just having a services tax.
Adjust the tax brackets for inflation, especially for minimum and lower to middle income earners.
First $20 k tax free (if UK and Canada can do it)
Allow beneficiaries to claim a tax return or remove the taxes from their benefits, if they are paying tax and can go on their mymsd app and see the tax deductions from their benefits, they deserve a tax return.
Benefits were once tax free. Ruth and her ilk made them taxable so some of the cost could be clawed back through the higher tax brackets that would apply for those who worked for part of the year. In effect it made worse-off the most vulnerable eg seasonal workers.
When tax rates are reduced though the net benefit stayed the same – unlike NZS whose gross super stayed the same – so those on benefits never ever benefited from tax cuts.
Making benefits tax free again would help those in precarious employment like seasonal work.
Just one of the creators of the widespread poverty we have..created by douglas/richardson/shipley etc all..
Poverty-creators that gutless neoliberal labour leaders/govts since then have failed to roll back…
Labour and national:.. kicking the crap out of the weakest/poorest..ever since that glorious neolibral revolution of the 1980's..
A pox on all of them…!
Yeah Helen Clark took the opportunity to kick those on benefit when she put $20-00 back on super but not on benefits, Jacinda Adern kicked them even harder when she had the most popular support ever in this country to help our poorest and could have outright implemented the WEAG recommendations and chose not to.
Agree with the indictment of ardern…
On how she utterly failed to do what she promised…
When she had in her hands the (majority) power to make good on those promises..
Around poverty/homelessness/child-poverty…the environment..
An epic fail..that kind of defines her/that labour (in name only) government…
https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/services-and-support/health-care-services/visiting-dentist/publicly-funded-dental-care
Which countries have universal free dental Care?
How much would this cost in NZ?
Yeah, a big problem for kids is access to routine dental care – just not enough dentists/dental nurses to go round.
"Which countries have universal free dental Care?"
Austria for starters, along with several other European social democractic countries. Although to be accurate I had to pay a 5 euro fee for x-rays when I had to get a total rebuild of a broken tooth when I lived there. I think that was on the grounds that in this case the x-ray wasn't medically necessary but the repair was.
"How much would this cost in NZ?"
I don't know – clearly not cheap (hence the 'medically necessary' rule)
https://www.workinaustria.com/en/living-working/social-welfare-and-health-system-in-austria/
The taxes (social insurance is collected in your wage taxes) are obviously higher than NZ, but as you argue in this post, help create a much more equitable society.
Excellent post, by the way. Thanks for writing it.
What percentage of gdp does nz spend on social services..?
The OECD reports as of 2022, New Zealand's public spending as a percentage of GDP is 20.8%, lower than the 2022 OECD average of 21.1%
https://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm
For NZ the reported figure is for 2021.
@ arkie..
Thanks for that..
So not much down on the oecd average…
But those with the dignity of/afforded by strong social support for their citizens spend 25%..that is clearly where we should be…
Robertson estimated over 1 billion p/a last time this came up.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/478762/single-step-move-to-universal-dental-care-cost-prohibitive-grant-robertson
Of course, it's only a wild estimate – we actually have no idea what the unmet dental need is….
I can see the point about the cost of a one-step move to universal dental coverage, on the otherhand the reduction in inflammatory disease that is linked to poor dental health (peridontal inflammation in particular) could have a huge positive impact on the health system and disability and associated social costs.
Oh, I agree. If (and it's a very big if) there were the dentists available. There aren't.
Dental treatment at hospitals is free – but is only available for the very worst cases – and by that time you already have the associated health issues. It's also very, very hit and miss – and the first thing cancelled when hospitals are under stress – as they are now.
The very best thing the government could do right now – is to triple the intake at the dental school at Otago University; and set up another one – somewhere in the North Island. I'm not particularly keen on it being in Auckland or Wellington – accommodation issues – but Waikato might be an option – they certainly seem to want some kind of medical facility. They could also do something about controlling the cost of qualification — IIRC dentistry is just about the most expensive qualification – more than med school. Which lessens the pressure for the dentists to charge more to pay back their student loans.
Increasing the numbers of qualified dentists will exert some downwards pressure on fees, and increase the service in small town/remote areas.
Once you have adequate numbers qualified (replacing the retirees) and in the training pipeline – then you can look at gradually extending the free or low cost provision.
However, I'm not seeing this government do anything about increasing the numbers training in either med school or dentistry. I have no idea why….
As friend who's finally going to get a new knee found out at a recent pre-surgery dental appointment, hospitals do pain relief and extractions for free. That's it.
Yep, you are quite correct. I did mean emergency dental surgery (extractions, etc.) – not routine dental care or preventive treatment.
And, you'd be bloody lucky to even get that ATM.
Completely agree with all of this. bonding is also an option for cutting the cost of training (student loan reductions) and improving smal town/rural supply. But that's not in vogue anymore.
I'd be keen to see some analysis of the reduction in chronic inflammatory conditions (e.g. heart disease, diabetes, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis etc.) if oral health was significantly improved. But even then, the govt is running up against long-term benefit vs immediate high costs.
We always discount the future.
As always, it depends on whom you ask. One billion dollars sounds like a nice round number aka a ‘Joyce number’.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2211/S00030/on-the-case-for-universal-free-dental-care.htm
The one billion came from Robertson – but he said it was only an estimate.
As I said, I don't think we (as in NZ MoH) has any idea of what the unmet need actually is.
"cost prohibitive". Misleading nonsense from Robertson. Only prohibitive if you are wedded to your current views on tax and economics.
Universal dental care can be paid for by a miniscule 1.2% p.a. wealth tax on just the 311 wealthy families looked at in the recent IRD tax study. They can easily afford it and are currently paying lower effective tax rates than minimum-wage workers.
And do you also have a magic wand to conjure up enough dentists to deliver the service?
Other than the much touted free Cuban dental, most countries I looked at seem to offer a free service for under 18s and than a mix of treatment options under medicare/insurance plans and co-payment/subsidy schemes.
https://www.helsenorge.no/en/payment-for-health-services/who-pays-your-dental-bill/
https://www.forsakringskassan.se/english/dental-care-subsidy
https://www.fyidenmark.com/dentalcare.html
https://www.infofinland.fi/en/health/dental-care
I agree that the leading countries in 'free' dental provision offer much the same as NZ. Indeed NZ is often touted as a free-dental system to aspire to.
While it might be nice to have (I certainly wince every time I pay the bill at the dentist) – it would be hugely expensive. And, more importantly, undeliverable.
NZ currently has a massive shortage of dentists. We are not training anywhere near replacement numbers – and haven't been for at least the last 20 years. Dental nurses/hygenists also seem to be in short supply.
While in theory, you have free dental for kids under 18 – you have to be a committed parent to make out of school hours appointments (the on site school dental service is overwhelmed, and sees only the most urgent of cases – IDK how they define it – but kids regularly go 3 years without a school dental appointment); and/or to find a dentist which will enrol teens (most established ones won't – they make more money from adults, than they do from the government payment).
Throwing in theoretically free, but actually unavailable, dental service as an election promise – would expose Labour to ridicule. Both in how to pay, and how to deliver.
What gets me is the richest pricks in the town lumbering patients with a merchant service fee on credit card payments.
The doctor, the pharmacist, nor my mower man do it and it brings out the worst in me.
Isn't that the bank charge? I was horrified when the big banks reinstated this after it had been removed during Covid (to avoid staff having to handle cash).
If I understand correctly, there is both a paywave charge, and a credit card fee. I believe it's something like about 2%.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/131004397/the-credit-card-swipe-thats-adding-10c-to-your-5-flat-white
Certainly, the banks could well aford to drop this – although, of course they won't, it's a very nice money spinner for them. But could certainly be something that the Government could legislate for.
It's the sort of charge I don't really notice when it comes to a coffee payment – but will go out of my way to avoid at the dentist.
Yup.
https://comcom.govt.nz/regulated-industries/retail-payment-system/surcharging