tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post328675869957914527..comments2024-03-04T16:39:30.609+13:00Comments on Lindsay Mitchell: Household wealth inequality and family structureLindsay Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04437693272797130833noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-9831306344583758642016-07-01T21:55:58.876+12:002016-07-01T21:55:58.876+12:00an upper house (a "fiscal council")
wh...<i> an upper house (a "fiscal council") </i><br /><br />which is precisely the solution just adopted by Puerto Rico...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-57449184208287724522016-06-30T08:46:17.238+12:002016-06-30T08:46:17.238+12:00Or are we facing the same problem as Britain and E...<i> Or are we facing the same problem as Britain and Europe and the USA and even Australia, where the elite political classes do not feel the need to represent the concerns of ordinary electors</i><br /><br />You don't get it: you have it backwards. In Britain, the "elite political classes" are supported by the high-income earners and nett taxpayers - whether in the City or other cities or university towns - they are the ones voting to Remain in the EU, or for Hilary. It's your 40%ers or Mitt Romney's 47%ers, that is to say the family breakdown disfunction no-tax paying bludger class, who voted to Leave and who will vote for Trump (especially who voted Leave and then got upset there would be no more UK money for the NHS, and no more Euro money for their economically dead towns and remote useless counties). <br /><br />The problem is a simple one: no representation without nett direct taxation. That formulation holds the solution, however: either for the whole parliament, or you have an upper house (a "fiscal council") that sets tax and spending levels and is voted on by those who deserve it, while social laws etc can be handled in a lower house of reps where everyone gets a vote. Don Brash argues strongly for this absolutely essential reform in his autobiography. <br /><br />For the EU referendum, because it is so much related to tax and the economy, the 40% or 47% wouldn't get a say: the rest of the country would quite handily have voted to remain. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-55045118568489172362016-06-30T00:10:32.978+12:002016-06-30T00:10:32.978+12:00The current levels of income inequality and wealt...<i> The current levels of income inequality and wealth will continue to grow</i><br /><br />good. because "inequality" is just another word for "freedom" or indeed "responsibility" or as the UK is finding out "independence".<br /><br />The problem with NZ is not too much "inequality" it is too little "independence"!<br /><br /><i>What happens when it's 50%? What chance do we have of reversing that trend?</i><br /><br />No representation without taxation. Insufficient income revokes the franchise <br />(and no, $150,000 family income isn't sufficient: more like $1M would seem right) Angry Torynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19962237.post-82716394759576979412016-06-29T15:37:00.041+12:002016-06-29T15:37:00.041+12:00Lindsay
Another gold medal analysis - thank you.
...Lindsay<br /><br />Another gold medal analysis - thank you.<br /><br />Wouldn't you think just one politician on either the left or the right of the spectrum would pick up this reality and run with it... just one? Could we please have just one?<br /><br />Or are we facing the same problem as Britain and Europe and the USA and even Australia, where the elite political classes do not feel the need to represent the concerns of ordinary electors, or more particularly those who are picking up the tab for family breakdown and dysfunction, given that 40% of NZ 'households' pay no net tax at all. What happens when it's 50%? What chance do we have of reversing that trend?<br /><br />Thanks again.<br />BrendanBrendan McNeillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741263914308842497noreply@blogger.com