(First published in the Curmudgeon column, The Dominion Post, December 20.)
AUCKLAND University academic Peter O’Connor at least got the first line right in his overwrought article in these pages last week attacking the proposed charter schools trial. “There is a fight brewing in schools,” he wrote.
Yes, there is a fight brewing. But we should be clear about who’s forming the battle lines, and why.
It’s the teachers who are gearing up for a stoush, and the reason is that they see a limited trial of charter schools as a threat to their control of the education system.
Teachers believe the only changes governments are entitled to make to education are those that they approve.
No other branch of the public service operates in this fashion. The police, the armed forces, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Treasury – all accept that governments are elected to make policy and the job of public servants is to put that policy into practice. Teachers alone consider themselves exempt from this principle.
The teacher unions haven’t revealed how they intend to oppose charter schools, but you can be sure they will do everything in their power to thwart the experiment.
As in the past (most recently with national standards) they will present themselves as taking a principled stand on the public’s behalf, but their primary motive is good old-fashioned self-interest. They will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.
Unfortunately, timid governments have encouraged teacher intransigence in the past by backing down whenever the unions dug their toes in over reform initiatives.
It remains to be seen whether the Key government is made of sterner stuff. That it stuck to its guns over national standards suggests it may be.
Perhaps Hekia Parata, the new minister of education, should talk to Julia Gillard, the head of Australia’s Labor government. As minister of education, Ms Gillard overrode teacher opposition to push through some of the very changes the unions have steadfastly opposed here.
As for associate professor O’Connor, we should remember that what’s proposed is only a small-scale trial. To read his lurid rhetoric, you’d think the government was proposing a wholesale reinvention of the system from the ground up.
His slogan-laden article, in which he described charter schools as a “corporatist attack” serving the interests of a “transnational capitalist elite” was an example of the drearily predictable, left-wing group-think that passes for rigorous analysis in the universities.
The PPTA is even more hysterical, likening charter schools to Dotheboys Hall in Charles Dickens’ Nicholas Nickleby – a place where boys are whipped, starved and abused by the ghastly headmaster Wackford Squeers.
In a provocatively insulting letter to John Key, PPTA president Robin Duff suggests the prime minister might like to watch the DVD of Nicholas Nickleby rather than read the novel, as it’s a long book with small print.
It would be idle to expect rational debate from these people. They have spent so much of their lives confined in classrooms with adolescents that their emotional maturity is irreparably impaired.
* * *
A CONSTANT refrain from the Left during the election campaign was that the National government had rewarded its wealthy mates with massive tax cuts.
Don’t expect this to let up any time soon. On TV3 last week, Greens co-leader Russel Norman claimed that only the top 10 percent who had got “$2 billion worth of tax cuts” from the Key government could afford to buy shares in Mighty River Power.
But does the tax system really favour the rich at the expense of low-income earners? Figures provided by national accountancy firm Markhams suggest that if anything, the reverse is true.
According to Markhams, households earning over $120,000 pay 97 percent of net individual income tax revenue, while the top 10 percent of households – the people Dr Norman reckons get favourable treatment – generate 71 percent of the individual tax take.
But wait, there’s more. Households earning less than $50,000 (43 percent of households) receive more in income support than they pay in income tax, on a net basis. Income tax paid by households earning between $50,000 and $110,000 effectively pays for this net refund.
Keep these figures in mind next time you hear a politician playing the envy card by claiming that the tax tables are tilted in favour of the wealthy.
* * *
FINALLY, a small but cheering antidote to the annual pre-Christmas deluge of anti-alcohol propaganda.
Of 68,000 motorists recently breath-tested in a nationwide police blitz, 373 returned positive results. That’s about 0.5 percent. In the Wellington region, 11,188 drivers were tested and 50 were over the limit – only 0.44 percent.
These figures are not only remarkably low, given that we’re constantly told we’re a nation of helpless drunks; they are also slightly down on last year’s.
They confirm that hazardous drinking is not a community-wide curse, as the wowser lobby wants us to believe, but is confined to a small segment of abusers. The rest of us should enjoy a guilt-free Christmas.
Showing posts with label Taxation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxation. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Sunday, July 31, 2011
The obligations of the rich
According to the Dominion Post this week, John Todd, the head of New Zealand’s wealthiest family, thinks the rich have a moral responsibility to help others.
It’s an admirable notion, but I think he’s wrong.
Provided the rich have acquired their wealth by honest, lawful means, I don’t see that they have any moral obligation to anyone. People who build up successful businesses are already performing a public service by providing useful goods and services, creating jobs and generating prosperity. They shouldn’t feel compelled to do any more than that.
Neither should they be taxed at a higher rate than others. The justification for the progressive taxation system has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with pragmatism. The wealthy are taxed at a higher rate not because they deserve to be, but because they can afford it and are therefore considered fair game.
If the rich choose to spread their wealth around, as members of the Todd family have done (possibly influenced by their Catholicism), that’s another matter entirely.
We could do with a stronger philanthropic tradition in New Zealand. There are many benevolent wealthy people operating below the public radar, but the welfare state tends to suppress philanthropic instincts because everyone assumes the government will take care of everything.
It’s an admirable notion, but I think he’s wrong.
Provided the rich have acquired their wealth by honest, lawful means, I don’t see that they have any moral obligation to anyone. People who build up successful businesses are already performing a public service by providing useful goods and services, creating jobs and generating prosperity. They shouldn’t feel compelled to do any more than that.
Neither should they be taxed at a higher rate than others. The justification for the progressive taxation system has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with pragmatism. The wealthy are taxed at a higher rate not because they deserve to be, but because they can afford it and are therefore considered fair game.
If the rich choose to spread their wealth around, as members of the Todd family have done (possibly influenced by their Catholicism), that’s another matter entirely.
We could do with a stronger philanthropic tradition in New Zealand. There are many benevolent wealthy people operating below the public radar, but the welfare state tends to suppress philanthropic instincts because everyone assumes the government will take care of everything.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Green leader's warped ideas on "equality"
A comment by Greens co-leader Russel Norman on Radio New Zealand’s Summer Report this morning laid bare the envy and resentment that lies at the heart of the left’s approach to wealth and taxation.
Norman complained that New Zealand already had “a very significant problem” with inequality, then attacked the report of the Taxation Working Group for recommending that the top personal tax rate be reduced from 38 percent. If the top rate is reduced, Norman suggests, we will have “greater inequality”.
What he seems to be saying is that making tax rates more equal promotes inequality. This is a miracle of inverted logic. It confirms that in the eyes of the left, inequality isn’t inequality as long as it’s the wealthy, or anyone the left perceives as being wealthy, who are being treated detrimentally.
The Taxation Working Group isn't suggesting that lower-income earners should be taxed more to offset reduced taxation on high incomes. They would be no worse off. But this is still too much for Norman, for whom it’s an article of faith that the better-off should be made to pay for their success.
The Labour government in 2000 gave legislative effect to this warped mindset when it penalised high-income earners by increasing the top personal tax rate from 33 to 38 percent. It was an envy tax, pure and simple – a vindictive gesture that grew out of the same ideological conviction that treats business not as a creator of wealth which benefits the entire community, but as a greedy monster that must be controlled and punished for its wickedness.
Even supposedly conservative governments subscribe, at least in part, to the notion that the wealthy are fair game. Progressive taxation – the system under which your tax rate increases the more you earn – is so firmly embedded in liberal democracies that hardly anyone bothers to question it. Yet the arguments in its favour have nothing to do with fairness or even economic efficiency. Progressive taxation springs from a mixture of the pragmatic (we’ll tax the rich more because they can afford to pay it) and the ideological (we’ll take money from the rich because they don’t deserve it, and in the process we’ll create the perfect society where everyone is equal). Neither seems a particularly sound, still less moral, justification.
Norman complained that New Zealand already had “a very significant problem” with inequality, then attacked the report of the Taxation Working Group for recommending that the top personal tax rate be reduced from 38 percent. If the top rate is reduced, Norman suggests, we will have “greater inequality”.
What he seems to be saying is that making tax rates more equal promotes inequality. This is a miracle of inverted logic. It confirms that in the eyes of the left, inequality isn’t inequality as long as it’s the wealthy, or anyone the left perceives as being wealthy, who are being treated detrimentally.
The Taxation Working Group isn't suggesting that lower-income earners should be taxed more to offset reduced taxation on high incomes. They would be no worse off. But this is still too much for Norman, for whom it’s an article of faith that the better-off should be made to pay for their success.
The Labour government in 2000 gave legislative effect to this warped mindset when it penalised high-income earners by increasing the top personal tax rate from 33 to 38 percent. It was an envy tax, pure and simple – a vindictive gesture that grew out of the same ideological conviction that treats business not as a creator of wealth which benefits the entire community, but as a greedy monster that must be controlled and punished for its wickedness.
Even supposedly conservative governments subscribe, at least in part, to the notion that the wealthy are fair game. Progressive taxation – the system under which your tax rate increases the more you earn – is so firmly embedded in liberal democracies that hardly anyone bothers to question it. Yet the arguments in its favour have nothing to do with fairness or even economic efficiency. Progressive taxation springs from a mixture of the pragmatic (we’ll tax the rich more because they can afford to pay it) and the ideological (we’ll take money from the rich because they don’t deserve it, and in the process we’ll create the perfect society where everyone is equal). Neither seems a particularly sound, still less moral, justification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)