1. Why would John Key not be happy with data showing that there are a lot more people earning higher incomes? This seems to be at odds with leftist theory that states fewer and fewer people will earn more of the wealth of the nation compared to those towards the bottom. Those statistics don’t show this at all.

2. According to our prime minister the income gap in New Zealand is not widening. Has he or his social development minister seen the documentaries, Child Poverty in NZ or Mind the Gap. No because there is nothing to be learned watching them, better to keep our heads firmly in the sand because it is just another lefty scare tactic.

   • Is the problem now the income gap and not the poverty at the bottom? Why does the left keep changing their aims?

     • Because, Gosman, there is so little to complain about they have to invent causes. An income gap, as such, is absolutely no problem at all, so long as all citizens have access to the basic necessities of life, including adequate food and water, education etc. After that, it is entirely up to individual choices and work ethic.

     • @gosman. Mate, there interrelated socio-economic factors. The income gap and poverty are key pillars of New Zealand’s current socio-economic silhouette. Key’s data isn’t about more people earning more, it’s about the same 5% earning more. Capitalism only benefits the ‘in-crowd.’

       • That is not what the data shows. The data shows a lot more are earning the higher incomes. That would suggest that 5 percent is increasing and not just getting wealthier.

         • Don’t be such an idiot Gosman. It shows nothing of the sort except in your libertarian fetish-fantasies.

           The gap between the rich and the poor appears to be widening with the number of Kiwis earning more than $100,000 increasing by nearly three quarters.

           […]

           The statistics show median income has increased from $24,400 to $28,500 but the figure has not kept pace with the inflation rate – calculated to be $28,694 to have the same purchasing power.

           http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11166484

           Christ on a stick, between you and IV, we must be getting every bit of dishonest bullsh*t you rightwingers can throw at us.

           Keep trying, Gosman. So far you’re 10/10 for epic fail.

   • Peter if you are getting your information from TV documentaries I can understand why you believe the income gap is widening. I suggest you look at hard data, such as that cited previously by none other than the author of this article that shows that income inequality is in fact not increasing.

     • Here’s the cite

       http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/income_inequality.php#sthash.wx9gUf2m.dpuf

       • IV – you’re still linking to a website that doesn’t prove your assertions!! You twat! How long will it take for you to actually READ what you’re linking to!

         Let me point out what you’ve missed;

         Income Inequality: P80/P20 Ratio

         In New Zealand during 1982–2012 income inequality, as measured by the P80/P20 ratio, was higher after adjusting for housing costs, as housing costs generally make up a greater proportion of household income for lower income than for higher income households…

         Income Inequality: Gini Coefficient

         In New Zealand during 1982–2012, income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, was also higher after adjusting for housing costs, for the same reasons as given above…

         The report also states,

         During 2009–2011 however, the impact of the economic downturn and global financial crisis led to volatility in the index, with Perry noting that it may take one or two further surveys before the post-crisis inequality level becomes clear

         And finally, inequality may not be rising as fast as it did previously, as the report conmcl;udes,

         Using both the before and after housing cost measures, the Gini Coefficient declined slightly between 2001 and 2007, a decline which Perry attributes to improving employment and the impact of the Working for Families package.

         Between 2001 and 2007?!

         That was a LABOUR government – with it’s Working for families package! You’re using Labour’s policies to “prive” your point?!

         The same packet that Key described as “communism by stealth”!

         You are truly pathetic if you cannot find data to back up your rubbish.

         But thanks for proving yet again that you neo-liberals will stoops to outright lies to justify your failed ideology!

         Keep’em coming, Username Intrinsicvalue .

         • prive = prove

         • Frank:

           1. The link I am using was OUR cite.
           2. The link absolutely backs up what I am asserting…read the graph Frank.
           3. To justify your distortion of the data you are now using the ‘after adjusting for housing costs’. That is blatantly dishonest. Incomes are totally unrelated to housing costs. People have a choice where they live and whether or not they buy a house. Incomes are determined by the market, and are based on education, the particular occupation and a plethora of other factors.

           Your wrong on this Frank, and your own cite proves it.

   • Indeed, Peter. The Census last year, through the NZ Herald;

     The gap between the rich and the poor appears to be widening with the number of Kiwis earning more than $100,000 increasing by nearly three quarters.

     […]

     The statistics show median income has increased from $24,400 to $28,500 but the figure has not kept pace with the inflation rate – calculated to be $28,694 to have the same purchasing power.

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11166484

     The Herald’s census report (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11166347) also referred to dropping home ownership,

     nearly 65 per cent of households owned their home or held it in a family trust compared with nearly 70 per cent in 2006;

     Home ownership has been dropping steadily in the last 20 to 30 years;

     1991: 73.8%
     1996: 70.7%
     2001: 67.8%

     http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/housing-profiles-owner-occupied.aspx

     This indicates that whilst a few are benefitting from a globally-led economic recovery – that the middle and lower incomer earners are going backwards.

     Falling home ownership indicates this. Conversely, rising incomes would result in rising home ownership, but this is not happening.

     More evidence (if we needed it) that neo-liberalsm is failing the majority.

     • The stats don’t necessarily reflect that at all.

       NZ has had a very high level of home ownership compared to other nations. If we compared our rates to those in many European nations I think you will find that almost 68% is very high.

       The fact that the number of people earning the higher rate has increased dramatically is at odds with the view that the changes have only benefitted the same small section of society. The stats are in fact consistent with neo-liberal ideology in that you free the economy from articicial constraints and you will get more wealthy people providing a greater tax base.

       • The stats do reflect that.

         You’re just being a dickhead.

         As usual.

         • No they don’t. You can’t have it both ways Frank. If the numbers earning higher incomes is increasing, then there are more people getting a bigger share of the pie. Simple as that. The data also shows that the median incomes have increased by around 17%, virtually the same as the inflation for the period. So if there are more earning more, and the median has kept pace with inflation, who is going backwards?

       • So home ownership is falling but you want to deny that because it is ‘high’.

         And tax receipts should grow but aren’t because neoliberalism doesn’t work.

         You’re onto a real winner here Gosman – why not throw in some climate change denial or eugenics too? Your credibility can only improve.

     • Frank…

       The fact that the rich are getting richer doesn’t mean the poor are getting poorer or that the income gap is growing. I refer you (again) to your own cite at http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/income_inequality.php#sthash.Um8JJfzq.dpuf that shows that income inequality peaked in 2004, and has been on a downward trend ever since. That indicates that if the rich are getting richer, then the not so rich must be getting richer as well.

       With regards to home ownership, your assumptions are way off. If only the 1% were buying homes, then home ownership would be dropping at a much higher rate than your data indicates. Plus, not all of the 1% own homes, I personally know of a number of very wealthy people who choose to rent, so your assumption is a nonsense.

       Finally, you term “globally led recovery” is absolutely delightful, if delusional. NZ is recovering ahead of most of the developed world, witnessed by the rising NZ$, just as under Labour we went into recession before most of the rest of the world. But I give you the award for the best word twist of the day.

       • Frank I’ve just checked your home ownership data and I wonder why you didn’t include the 2006 census data that showed home ownership of non-movers back up to 70%.

         And there’s this:

         “Commentators have suggested that a number of factors may have contributed to this decline in home ownership, both financial and social. Financial considerations such as increased debt burdens caused by student loans may have delayed home ownership by affecting the ability of individuals to access mortgages. Some people may have chosen to rent because they perceive that other forms of investment may give a higher return, a trend reinforced by greater job mobility. There have also been significant social changes that may have impacted on home ownership and reduced the demand for traditional housing: the later forming of couple households, later childbirth or couples choosing to be child free. Increasing ethnic diversity may also be a factor, with different cultures following their own expectations of housing, perhaps prioritising other expenditure instead of having home ownership as a goal.”

         http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/housing-profiles-owner-occupied.aspx

         • …and your 2013 data is just plain unreliable…

           http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9515325/Big-gaps-in-home-ownership-information

           When you cherry pick data, without fully researching it, you fall into trouble Frank.

           • When you cherry pick data, without fully researching it, you fall into trouble Frank.

             Not as troublesome when you can’t/won’t read the info I’ve already presented, IV.

             Anyway, you’re clutching at straws. Just because one person has raised a question (which may or may not be valid) – the responses and data remains the same.

             You can’t prove the data is unreliable.

             You can only present one person’s opinion questioning it.

             And even you can’t be that thick as not to notice the down-ward trends in home ownership… or are you?

             Really – are you that desperate?!

             Try chicken entrails next. They were very popular in the Middle Ages.

             • 1. You omitted the 206 data, Frank. Why?

               2. You haven’t answered the core element of my posts, which is that there are many reasons for a decline in home ownership rates and you need to demonstrate that this is in and of itself bad. In other words…If more people are choosing not to own a home, why is that so bad?

               http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/housing-profiles-owner-occupied.aspx

         • Oh FFS!!! You really don’t read very well do you, IV?

           You missed this in my 11.27AM post above,

           nearly 65 per cent of households owned their home or held it in a family trust compared with nearly 70 per cent in 2006

           Are you neo-liberal eyes so blind they’ll only see what they want?!

           Christ, no wonder you have trouble with not being able to read the data YOU present!

           • Read your post of 11.27 on January 27th Frank.

             • “Home ownership has been dropping steadily in the last 20 to 30 years;
               1991: 73.8%
               1996: 70.7%
               2001: 67.8%”

               Where’s the 2006 data (70%) Frank?

               • Congratulations. You found it.

                 Wasn’t hard was it?

                 • Where are the 2006 stats in your table Frank?

                   Stop hiding behind the moderators.

       • …that shows that income inequality peaked in 2004, and has been on a downward trend ever since.

         I’ve outlined the facts above, IV (January 27, 2014 at 5:32 pm).

         Either you’re being wilfully dishonest, or you have comprehension/reading problems.

         In fact, mate, you’re coming perilously close to trolling.

         • Ummmm…. he critiqued data you provided. Why is this Trolling? Unless you just expect people to agree with you without questioning. There is a word for that I believe.

           • He did provide it Gosman. You and Intrinsicmoron are just playing stupid.

             How many times does he have to point it out to you???

             Present your counter-argument by all means. But don’t play silly games. It makes you look more pathetic than you and Intrinsicdickhead already are.

         • Frank I’m simply challenging the assumptions you are making from your own data. Unless you invoke the housing costs (which in my opinion has nothing to do with income equality), then your conclusions are erroneous.

           • Of course housing costs have everything to do with income equality – you are the only one who seems to have a problem with that because it won’t fit into your trolling

             • No, the problem I have with it is that it is simply illogical. What a person earns has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of the house they live in Martyn. Nothing.

               • Of course it does

                 • Ah, no, it doesn’t. I can earn the same money living in Otara as I can earn living in West Auckland, Mt Eden or Remuera. Makes no difference.

                   • And the difference between my income and that of the highest earner in the country doesn’t change just because our landlords put our rent up.

                 • Indeed, Martyn. Anyone with two inter-connecting neurons understands the impact of housing costs on income equality.

                   I think we have bloody-minded RWNJ troll squatting here. LMAO 😀

                   One who evidently “wants to get under my skin”, heh heh heh…

                 • The adoption of flaky data models, such as inclusion of housing costs in a measure of income inequality is the same tactic used to try to sell the manufacturing crisis that wasn’t, the crisis of the regions, which wasn’t…the list goes on.

3. I half expected a video clip of Phil Goff or Trevor Mallard, but Gooseman and Intrinsic Lack of Value turned up to give the local dash of idiocy anyway.

Comments are closed.