Headline: Risks due to income inequality in New Zealand
We must fix income imbalances in New Zealand if we want to avoid the societal breakdown inequality can trigger.
New Zealand needs to take action on our growing inequality in light of the World Economic Forum’s 2014 report on global risk which identifies the chronic gap between the richest and poorest as the most likely cause of serious damage globally in the coming decade, said the Green Party today.
“We must fix income imbalances in New Zealand if we want to avoid the societal breakdown inequality can trigger,” said Green Party MP Jan Logie.
“Right wing economic policies have caused a massive increase in inequality in New Zealand. From the mid 1980s to the mid 2000s, the gap between the rich and the rest of us grew faster in New Zealand than in any other wealthy country.
“New Zealand had a proud history of being an egalitarian and relatively equal country. However that has changed and we now have big income gaps which are now acting as a barrier to most New Zealanders getting ahead.
“Inequality is an unnatural economic state. It is the result of politicians making choices that create imbalances that benefit a small number of wealthy people and hurt all the rest of.
“National is doing nothing to address income inequality in New Zealand. Their own forecasts show that despite predictions of strong economic growth wages are expected to rise by only one percent.
“The average New Zealand is not getting a fair return on improvements in the economy. The wealth is going to only a few, otherwise wage growth would be better.
“The Green Party will implement smart, compassionate economic and social policies that will make New Zealand a more equal country again.”
“We can take basic steps now like raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, encourage more employers to adopt a living wage and introducing a capital gains tax so that those who earn their income from non-wage sources pay their fair share,” said Ms Logie.
—
I understand that some companies, though more likely corporates, pay bonuses to CEO’s based on how well they manage to keep wages down.
I think we need a business culture change altogether
Land taxes looks like one sure fire way of bringing equality “90% of millionaires get there by property inveztment” probably isnt far off.
there is a problem, however, the ramifications of the Green Parties (by the letter) interpretation of the indigenous version of the treaty.
“We must fix income imbalances in New Zealand if we want to avoid the societal breakdown inequality can trigger,” said Green Party MP Jan Logie.
My feeling is that you are right in principle.
The societal breakdown that you refer to is already starting to happen in some parts of the world – The Middle East, The Ukraine, Pakistan, Thailand, for example (forget the local politics in these territories, the civil unrest in these countries is not really about local governance, but rather its about local poverty and the ensuing inequality that poverty engenders).
However, this kind of civil unrest a wee way off yet in NZ, I think.
Those who occupy in the driving seat of the world economy, during the next century or so, will increasingly come under under attack regarding their failure to address the poverty gap. But don’t forget that these “economic-bus drivers” are appointed by the well-heeled in society. Furthermore, they are appointed specifically to advance the aspirations of the well-heeled ( generally at the expense of the rest of society).
Currently, there is no willingness on the part of of the well-heeled to address the poverty gap. Their very survival in fact DEPENDS upon the continuing existence of the poverty gap. (Forget ‘trickle-down” theory – we all now know that this was a con).
The facts are fairly clear:
1. There are too many people on the planet for it to safely sustain.
2. Population control, especially in extremely impoverished counties, has failed.
3. A political choice has to be made sooner or later. That choice is whether or not to look after society’s most vulnerable (previously one of Government’s prime directives), or whether to concentrate on only the rich – i.e. to “look after” those who will probably “make it through” to the 22nd Century in some shape or form.
Rightly or wrongly, the John Key government, i believe, has already made that choice for NZ on their own personal terms.
Unpalatable – yes!
Untrue – well, we’ll see!
Comments are closed.