29 Mar 2016
by Jim Rose
in fiscal policy, labour economics, labour supply, macroeconomics, politics - New Zealand, population economics, poverty and inequality
Tags: Edward Prescott, New Zealand superannuation, old age pensions, social insurance, timing inconsistency, universal basic income, welfare state
Gareth Morgan revealed today a hitherto unnoticed design feature in his Universal Basic Income of $11,000 per annum. It will be phased in over a long time. That will mean that Generation Rent will continue to pay taxes to fund a universal old age pension for their parents and grandparents, but will not be fortunate enough to receive that themselves.
Source: Morgan Foundation (2016) Taxpayers Union Critique of the UBI just bonkers – again
They are not left of their own devices. Generation Rent is expected to save the Universal Basic Income they receive over their working lives to avoid living in poverty in their retirement. Does not strike me as a political winner.
The Morgan Foundation does not understand the implications of time inconsistency for retirement savings policy:
- Which is better? Save for your retirement through the share market or save to own your own home and then present yourself at the local social security office to collect your taxpayer funded old-age pension?
- Under this fine game of bluff, you bleed the taxpayer in your old age and pass on your debt-free home to your children.
This strategy of not saving much for retirement is rational for the less well-paid. The family home is exempt from income and asset testing for social security. If you lose you bet, sell your house and live off the capital. For ordinary workers, this is a good bet. The middle class might prefer to live in a more luxurious retirement.
For ordinary workers, whose wages are not a lot more than their old age pension from the government, a government funded pension is a good political gamble. The old-age pension for a couple in New Zealand is set at no less that 60% of average earnings.
Edward Prescott argues for compulsory retirement savings account albeit with important twists because it is otherwise irrational for many to save for their retirement against the background of a welfare state:
The reason we need to have mandatory retirement accounts is not because people are irrational, but precisely because they are perfectly rational — they know exactly what they are doing.
If, for example, somebody knows that they will be cared for in old age — even if they don’t save a nickel — then what is their incentive to save that nickel? Wouldn’t it be rational to spend that nickel instead?
…Without mandatory savings accounts we will not solve the time-inconsistency problem of people under-saving and becoming a welfare burden on their families and on the taxpayers. That’s exactly where we are now.
28 Mar 2016
by Jim Rose
in Austrian economics, constitutional political economy, currency unions, economics, economics of bureaucracy, Euro crisis, international economics, macroeconomics, monetary economics, Murray Rothbard, Public Choice
Tags: Euroland, European Union
19 Mar 2016
by Jim Rose
in economic growth, economic history, entrepreneurship, fiscal policy, macroeconomics, public economics
Tags: British disease, British economy, growth of government, sick man of Europe, size of government, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and investment, taxation and labour supply, Thatchernomics
The large rise in tax in personal income in the 1970s coincided with the rise of the British disease and British economy becoming widely known as the sick man of Europe. The large decline in taxation in personal income under Thatchernomics was followed by an economic boom.
Source: OECD Stat.
18 Mar 2016
by Jim Rose
in business cycles, economic history, fiscal policy, great recession, macroeconomics, politics - USA, public economics
Tags: company tax, company tax rate, growth of government, GST, indirect taxation, property taxes, size of government, Social Security contributions, taxation and investment, taxation and labour supply, welfare state
The only major change in the US tax mix in the last 50 years has been greater reliance on social security contributions.
Source: OECD Stat.
The share going to income taxes bobbing up and down quite a lot in the last 30 years much of that to do with the business cycle. In the 1990s, the share of taxes from personal income increased during boom times. In the Great Recession, the tax share to income tax rose with the declining economy as did that on corporate profits.
17 Mar 2016
by Jim Rose
in applied welfare economics, economic growth, economic history, labour economics, poverty and inequality, unemployment
Tags: antimarket bias, pessimism bias, rational irrationality, The Great Enrichment, top 1%
Source: Do inequality and poverty matter? | Pundit – Brian Easton (2016) .
I will outsource to Brian Easton, the CTU, the CTU’s Bill Rosenberg and Closer Together Whakatata Mai – reducing inequalities because the continual correction of Max Rashbrooke on poverty and inequality is becoming tiring.
Source: Love in the time of crisis, James Robins, Wednesday, 16 March 2016, Newstalk NZ.
Inequality has not risen for at least 20 years as Bill Rosenberg tweeted. The rise in inequality in the late 1980s and early 1990s was followed by an employment boom that lasted to 2009.
Unemployment was as low as 3 1/2% for several years despite a large increase in labour force participation. Furthermore, the gender wage gap in New Zealand fell rapidly to now be the smallest in any industrialised country.
As the Facebook photos show, there has been strong income and wage growth despite the grizzling of the left. The return of income growth and wages growth after 20 years of real wage stagnation followed the economic reforms of the 1980s and the passage of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991.
As the CTU shows below, the economic reforms in the 1980s put an end to a sharp decline in the relative economic performance of the New Zealand economy.
16 Mar 2016
by Jim Rose
in economic history, economics of information, economics of regulation, monetary economics, politics - USA
Tags: antimarket bias, libertarian paternalism, monetary policy, mortgage interest rates, New Zealand Labour Party, Other people are stupid fallacy, rational irrationality, The fatal conceit, The pretence to knowledge
Despite the best efforts of the libertarian paternalists to sell the other people are stupid fallacy, ordinary New Zealanders are quite nimble at moving between fixed and floating rates depending upon their forecasts of the future of interest rates. Price controls on floating rate mortgages, as suggested by the New Zealand Labour Party, would make this more difficult, not easier.
Source: S8 Banks: Mortgage lending ($m) – Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
16 Mar 2016
by Jim Rose
in economics of regulation, industrial organisation, monetary economics, politics - New Zealand
Tags: antimarket bias, mortgage interest rates, New Zealand Greens, New Zealand Labour Party, price controls, rational irrationality
I did not know so many people were on a fixed rate mortgage. Labour is risking its economic credibility on regulating the rates for a minority of mortgages.
Source: S8 Banks: Mortgage lending ($m) – Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
Capped mortgages cannot be linked to the current official cash rate of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand because they are based on expected future interest rates over an up to 5 year span, not current interest rates.
An important motivation for going onto a floating rate is you can repay faster. Fixed rate mortgages have penalties for early repayment.
Source: Price Controls: Price Floors and Ceilings, Illustrated.
In consequence, price controls linking floating rate mortgages to the official cash rate of the Reserve Bank would benefit better off mortgagees expecting to repay quickly. A typical policy of the modern Labour Party.
15 Mar 2016
by Jim Rose
in industrial organisation, monetary economics, politics - USA, public economics
Tags: economics of banking, government ownership, KiwiBank, network industries, New Zealand Greens, New Zealand Post, rational irrationality, state owned enterprises
Source: New Zealand Treasury – data released under the Official Information Act.
13 Mar 2016
by Jim Rose
in budget deficits, economic history, fiscal policy, macroeconomics, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, public economics
Tags: Australia, growth of government, size of government
I do not trust the numbers for New Zealand prior to the early 1990s released by the OECD. New Zealand simply did not have a tax structure including a GST in the double digits back then to support estate of that size. Nonetheless, the size of government in New Zealand is systematically larger than in Australia, a richer country which can afford a large government and generous welfare state.
Source: General government – General government revenue – OECD Data and Data extracted on 12 Feb 2016 08:45 UTC (GMT) from OECD.Stat from OECD Economic Outlook November 2015.
Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments