A former Papua New Guinea army leader, Major-General Jerry Singirok, is furious after being arrested and charged under the Capital Markets Act.

He was a trustee of Melanesian Trustee Services Ltd, part of a superannuation agency with 20,000 unit holders, but its trustee licence was revoked last year.

General Singirok said the agency was already embroiled in legal action over that revocation and he said his arrest on Wednesday was aimed at undermining that action.

He said Task Force Shield, which he said had been set up by Trades Minister Richard Maru, had made a series of allegations about the degree of oversight at Melanesian Trustee Services Ltd.

The Post-Courier reported that Singirok was released on 6000 kina (NZ$2700) bail.

“They said that we did not audit, [but] we got audited, annual audits for the past 10 years,” he said.

“They said we didn’t do that. [They claimed] we continued to function without consulting our unit holders, which is wrong.

“There is a list of complaints, and as I said, it is now going to be subjected to a court. What’s important is that they are using the Capital Markets Act to charge us.”

General Singirok said in a Facebook post that he had spent his entire life fighting for the rights of the ordinary people and he would clear his name after what he is calling a “witchhunt”.

He said he had been a member of the superannuation operator since 1989.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A secret ballot by members of the Association of University of the South Pacific Staff (AUSPS) and USP Staff Union have voted in favour of strike action at the institution.

Unofficial results in the poll last Wednesday showed 63 percent in favour, above the needed majority threshold.

AUSPS general secretary Rosalia Fatiaki said staff missed out on salary adjustments in 2019 and 2022.

Fatiaki said the union had not pushed USP at the time to adjust the salaries because they were told the university was in a financial crisis.

The regional university gave staff a two percent pay rise in October 2022, January 2023, and January this year.

However, Fatiaki said it was “way below” the increase needed to match the cost of living in Fiji and unions had not been consulted.

“The management has refused to negotiate salary adjustment and that is what the secret ballot was for,” she said.

USP not engaged
“We now demand that the university be just and fair to staff by looking and negotiating salary adjustments with the union.”

Fatiaki said USP used to contribute an additional two percent above the national minimum for its superannuation contribution to senior staff but this was reduced to the minimum during the covid-19 pandemic and had not returned which the union was demanding.

She said USP had not engaged with the union but had cited financial reasons for withholding pay.

Fatiaki said this was despite more students being on the USP roll.

She said the union was now waiting on Fiji’s Labour Ministry to advise the on next course of action.

“We have not received a confirmation from [the ministry], they have acknowledged the receipt of the secret ballot results and they are yet to formally provide us that confirmation. So we are awaiting for that and we are expecting that to come through today (Friday).”

Fatiaki said she hoped vice-chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia would “come to the table” and take staff grievances seriously.

‘Going round and round’
“We are going round and round and round,” she said.

“Rather than [Professor Ahluwalia] coming to tell us ‘no we can’t, we will not [meet the unions demands]’, he’s sending the representatives to come and talk to us and then they go [and] back to him.

“Now it’s time for him to come to the table and deal with the issues.”

She said staff dissatisfaction with Professor Ahluwalia was not a reason for the strike.

However, she said union members had expressed concerns about the vice-chancellor’s leadership because of “numerous unresolved issues”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Radio New Zealand (Checkpoint) ran stories last week about New Zealanders aged over 65 stranded in Australia who are at risk of having their pensions (‘New Zealand Superannuation’)stopped, and then having to repay the funds they received while in Australia.

There is a simple solution to the problem – to just keep paying stranded pensioners their pensions, and to withdraw any threats to require repayment when they eventually return to Aotearoa. The problem is compounded by the rigidity – and general unavailability – of Carmel Sepuloni, the Minister of Social Development who oversees the ‘benefit system’. While it is true that she appears to be perhaps the least competent of government ministers (few say it, but many think it), it also is apparent that she and certain other ministers – most notably Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi and Senior Citizens Minister Ayesha Verrall – are being closely micromanaged by their seniors. On Friday’s (17 Sep) Covid19 press conference, I waited for Minister of Finance – one of the senior ministerial minders of Sepuloni, Verrall, and Faafoi – to put the matter straight, and assure stranded pensioners that common sense would prevail. But he said nothing.

The key RNZ stories are these:

• 15 Sep: Pensioners stuck in Australia ask for ‘Jacinda’s kindness’
• 16 Sep: Assoc Health Minister on Covid-19 cases, pensioners in AUS (interview with Ayesha Verrall)
• 16 Sep: ‘Devastated’ woman who could not return from Australia faces pension cut

Before discussing the general issue, and how the government can easily stop this issue – and others – from festering, I should note the phenomenon of the Radio New Zealand trolls. Some RNZ programmes invite – or attract – more listener feedback than others. Checkpoint is one of the more prominent programmes in this regard. Some of the feedback, which is mentioned throughout the programme along with a brief slot just before the 6pm news, can only be called ‘trolling’; this term derives from the social media practice of posting or sending cruel messages. The RNZ trolls tends to argue along the lines of: ‘you knew the rules, you took the risk’, with maybe the addition of ‘I could have gone to Australia when you did, but chose to stay on my [trolling] couch instead’. Like younger social media trolls, these mainly older trolls are conspicuously unsympathetic to others (in a sadly self-centred way), they lack any real sense of empathy for the myriad sets of circumstances that other people face, and tend to take pleasure from the misfortune of others. Sadly, again, I believe that the present government sees such trolls as an important part of its voter base; the optics of this government – as shown through the media appearances of ministers such as Sepuloni, Faafoi, and Verrall – are that the government itself lacks sympathy and empathy.

(A big lacuna in economic theory is in its inability to address the reality that some people’s utility – pleasure – arises specifically from the disutility – pain – caused to others. Not only do we seen this generally in the phenomena of trolling and most pornography, we also see it in the way that too many people see ‘houses’ as financial levers that make themselves richer while necessarily making others poorer. Land hoarders should also be understood as trolls.)

The Rules in this Case

The specific New Zealand Superannuation problem arises in part because most superannuitants see their payments, broadly, as a ‘return on investment’, whereas the government sees New Zealand Superannuation as a social welfare benefit. Both perceptions are somewhat muddled.

Senior citizens only ‘worked for their pension’ in a collective sense; thus New Zealand Superannuation can be seen as a reward for forms of contribution other than through businesses and through paid employment. One important contribution is that of ‘failure’, in the important sense that the success of some – in businesses or otherwise – can only have meaning when contextualised against the non-success of others. A gold medallist at the Olympic Games can only succeed, as a gold medallist, because of the participation of the other competitors who ‘failed’ to win. Thus, New Zealand Superannuation works as a reward ‘without judgement’ of what a person’s contribution may or may not have been.

The government sees New Zealand Superannuation as a cash benefit that – as they also see other benefits – must be wrapped around with a set of rules. Generally, governments would like to see even more (or tighter) rules attached to New Zealand Superannuation, but are afraid to act in a way that ensures the optics of New Zealand Superannuation will make it look even more like a welfare benefit and even less like a return on investment. (This is why it is the ‘oldies’ are the group most impassioned to keep New Zealand Superannuation as it is, even though most proposed tightenings of the rules would only adversely affect ‘youngies’. The ‘oldies’ are a substantial block of voters, who, for the most part, cling tightly to the view that superannuation is quite distinctly different from other benefits.)

There are a number of completely unnecessary rules around New Zealand Superannuation that relate to overseas travel. These rules make sense from a government perspective – because governments like beneficiaries to be fettered by rules (in part because they believe that many of their electors are beneficiary-unsympathetic trolls), and because governments see superannuation as a benefit. But they make no sense from a ‘return on investment’ viewpoint.

Further, receipt of the universal pension (ie New Zealand Superannuation) enables seniors to continue with – even to extend – their contributions to New Zealand. Many do this by staying in paid work or self-employment or continuing to run businesses; they understand that they will not be penalised by having their pensions withdrawn or abated. Other seniors contribute through invaluable contributions to the voluntary sector. Many make their ongoing contributions as grandparents, which in many cases is a surrogate parent role. Further, with the globalised world that we became accustomed to in the 1990s and the 2000s (and to a lesser extent in the post-GFC 2010s), grandparents may be required just about anywhere in the world; it’s pretty much a matter of chance whether a given senior person residing ‘permanently’ in Hamilton has grandchildren in Invercargill, Rockhampton, or Saskatoon.

So, the rule that constrains pensioners from international travel is a rule that need not be there. Such a rule serves no useful purpose.

Nevertheless, given that the rule is there, what should the New Zealand government do for people caught out by the rule? The obvious answer is to suspend the rule for people caught out by pandemic restrictions, health emergencies, flight cancellations etc. There would be much political kudos arising from such application of common sense, and almost no political downside; the issue would simply drop-off the news cycle.

But no, the government knows better. Instead, they have promised to arrange a relief flight from Sydney; and they offer stranded pensioners the chance of a place in the MIQ (Managed Isolation and Quarantine) lottery. Not only is all this very uncertain and unnecessarily stressful – indeed it may not be easy to arrange interstate travel from, say, Launceston, and pre-flight covid testing requirements are not always easy to fulfil – it misses the point that the best solution for stranded grandparents may not be to bring them home at all. If they are helping their grandchildren and adult children in places like Oamaru or Bateman’s Bay or Niagara Falls, it may be better that they are supported to stay there and continue making those contributions. And if such seniors do a few scenic trips in Australia or elsewhere, it should neither be the concern of the government nor the trolls. After all, many New Zealanders made many sacrifices in their lives so that they could retire and then go on a ‘trip of a lifetime’. Many of our ‘baby boomers’ have now had that prospect snatched away from them. Yes, they may be able to do scenic trips within New Zealand in 2022; but it’s not for the government or the trolls to control where superannuitants go to on their retirement travels. It makes no sense to say they can stay in Caroline Bay, but not the Sunshine Coast.

Was the present hiatus foreseeable?

The present rule has an out-clause. Superannuation payments may be continued if affected persons apply on the grounds that their new situation was ‘unforeseeable’ (refer to the Ayesha Verrall interview above). Now the trolls and the government say that, despite opening up green flights across the Tasman Sea with the express purpose of facilitating tourism (the main discussion point then was the economic need to host Australian tourists here), it was fully foreseeable that trans-Tasman tourists might be stranded on the wrong side of the ditch for many months or even for years.

I would argue that this was not foreseeable, given both the promotion of ‘the bubble’ and the seeming resolution of the covid crisis. There had been no ‘Level 4 lockdowns’ since April 2020. My view that the present strandings were indeed unforeseeable is confirmed by Prime Minister Ardern’s repeated claims that “Delta changed everything”, and that the much stricter level of restrictions from August 2021 was only deemed necessary as a result of a ‘Delta strike’ that she herself (and her officials) had not foreseen. (Indeed I myself am booked to visit my daughter and grandchildren in Australia this December; in early June I could not have foreseen the present crisis on both sides of the Tasman Sea to the extent of choosing not to arrange this trip. I now know my chance of being able to travel is close to nil, and I know that – even if my flights are not cancelled – I could not contemplate going in December.)

The fact that Jacinda Ardern makes such stock of her government’s inability to foresee ‘Delta’ surely means that other less-briefed people could also not be expected to foresee the predicament now faced by stranded superannuitants. The government’s inability to foresee the present situation would surely constitute legal grounds for such stranded people to claim the continuance of their pensions on the basis that – within the present rules –the circumstances they now face were ‘unforeseeable’.

————-

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Here I just consider two typical New Zealanders of different generations, and two policy options. And no jargon.

Policy Options:

1. 1. Complex option; the status quo.
   2. Simple option: all New Zealanders over 18 receive a universal dividend of $175 per week; additionally, New Zealanders over 65 get a universal superannuation of $171 per week; all income is taxed at 33 cents in the dollar. (The two universal payments combine to $18,000 per year.)

Example People:

1. 1. ‘Married’ persons aged over 65.
   2. ‘Married’ persons with children, aged 18 to 64, with partners grossing around $35,000 a year. At lower household incomes, they qualify for Working for Families ‘tax credits’ and Accommodation Supplements.

Example People Findings

The chart looks at differences in the available weekly incomes of these example people, as their gross annual incomes vary from $0 to $100,000 per year; that is, the differences that would apply if Policy Option 1 was replaced by Policy Option 2.

(Note on Policy Option 1. Working for Families ‘tax credits’ are generally paid to children’s caregiver parents. Typically, the caregivers would be the lowerearning parents. However, in the scenario here, Example People 2 may be earning more or less than their partners, depending where they are on the chart’s income scale. To deal with this I have attributed these payments equally to each parent.)

(Note on Policy Option 2. This option regards a ‘superannuitant’ as any New Zealander aged over 65, and ‘beneficiary’ as being any New Zealander aged 18-64 who presently receives total public benefits in excess of $175 per week. With Policy Option 2, the first $175 per week of beneficiaries’ benefits becomes an unconditional universal dividend. The remainder continues to be a conditional payment.)

The chart shows that, for Policy Option 2, Example People 1 (‘senior citizens’) would gain about $30 per week if they have zero private earnings. That weekly gain falls to $0 per week if they gross $10,000 in a tax year. Senior citizens earning around $35,000 would be around $60 worse off under Policy Option 2 than under Policy Option 1. Higherearning seniors would be $70 per week worse off. The main losers from Option 2 would be higherearning superannuitants.

The blue part of the chart shows that no workingage people would be worse off than at present, and that some would gain. Their actual gains arising from Policy Option 2, which would vary from person to person, peak in our case at around $28,000. The main gainers from Option 2 would be minimumwage workers, and many part-time workers whose earnings are critical to their household budgets.

It is important to note that people of working age earning over $70,000 per year would experience no change. And persons earning between $50,000 and $70,000 – nearly half of all fulltime workers, would gain up to $10 per week.

Other Benefits of Policy Option 2

An important group of gainers would be young people – for example 2024 yearolds – a number of whom are dependent on their parents; others are beneficiaries trapped in benefit poverty. One of the great misfortunes of our times is the difficulty too many young people face in making the transition to economic independence, and to the personal autonomy that ensues from economic independence.

If we consider beneficiaries in general, this policy will not give them any more money directly. But, by allowing them to keep their universal dividend when they take on more paid work, the policy removes their poverty traps.

Policy Option 2 ticks all the boxes: it is affordable, it is simple, it is democratic, and it effectively redistributes income from comfortablyoff ‘boomers’ to ‘Gen-X’ ‘battlers’ and to millennials struggling in an environment of punitive benefits and precarious work. Option 2 also facilitates fulltime workers (eg 40hourperweek workers) to work fewer hours (eg 30 hours per week) and to live less stressed lives. It is a ‘winwinwinwinwin’ policy option. That’s five wins. Further, there would be a reduction in requirement for bureaucratic services as fewer people would seek help through conditional benefits. Tax collection would be substantially simplified.

There are simple and affordable solutions to our seemingly intransigent income distribution problems. It just requires a willingness to see. Thinking that feels bold to one generation, once absorbed, becomes commonsense to the next generation. Traditional ‘National Party’ tax cut policies are blighted by the fact that higher earners gain more than lower earners. In Policy Option 2, the gains go to where they are needed, the rich gain nothing, and the old rich become worse off.

Less targeting of benefits can mean better targeting. Less can be more.

Select Publications:

2019: http://socialalternatives.com/issues/basic-income-and-new-universalism

2018: https://www.nzae.org.nz/events/nzae-conference-2018/2018-conference-papers

2017: https://thepolicyobservatory.aut.ac.nz/publications/public-equity-and-tax-benefit-reform

2016: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol43/iss3/5/

2011: https://www.nzae.org.nz/events/nzae-conference-2011/programme

1998: https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj10/rejoinder-to-david-preston.html

1997: https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj09/constructing-a-universal-basic-income-and-social-wage.html

1991: http://keithrankin.co.nz/kr_uws1991.pdf

Winston Peters is well known for being belligerent, complaining and prone to political conspiracies. It’s easy to write-off his current High Court trial as hubris and score-settling. 

Peters is suing former National Cabinet Ministers and heads of government departments for their alleged role in his embarrassing 2017 scandal when his pension overpayments were made public in the midst of the election campaign.

Many seem to think that the Deputy Prime Minister should just move on. However, the issues involved in Peters’ lawsuit are incredibly important for politics and democracy. They go to the heart of ethics and the dangers of corruption in government. Peters is alleging, after all, that public servants and ministers of the Crown used privileged and private state information in a way that tried to bring him and his political party down during an election campaign.

One journalist who has been close to much of this action, has little doubt that dirty politics has been in play. Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan claims that she knows it was National who leaked the dirt on Peters’, because they told her this themselves – see her opinion piece, Winston’s in the right – National has a history of playing ‘dirty politics’.

Here’s the key part: “Did the National party leak Winston Peters’ superannuation details? In my opinion, yes. The reason I say that is because in the weeks before the leak, I was told by the Nats that the Nats had the information. They told me they were considering leaking it. They told me how they would leak it, the process they would follow to cover their tracks. Without going into details, I can tell you that’s exactly how it played out. So the chances that the Nats leaked it are about 99 per cent.”

Du Plessis-Allan says Peters is therefore completely justified in taking legal action: “Winston Peters is doing the right thing by suing senior MPs in the National Party. In fact, he’s doing us all a favour. I’ve no appetite for the dirty politics that the National Party plays. In my time working in and around the press gallery in Wellington, in my opinion, there was no party prepared to stoop to the levels the Nats were to ruin someone’s reputation. Too often they made things personal.”

I’ve also argued that Peters’ case is a vital one for democracy – see my opinion piece published yesterday on the RNZ website: The Winston Peters case and the politicisation of the public service.

Here’s my main point: “It’s yet to be proven that the National politicians were in any way involved in the leak – even if it seems highly likely. But what is not in doubt is that the dirt on Mr Peters was passed on to his political opponents by public servants. Mr Peters is right to challenge this. There is something wrong when government departments are passing on potentially damning electoral weapons to their masters of the day. There’s a term for this: the politicisation of the public service. It’s what erodes democracies, allowing ruling politicians to have unfair and unethical advantages over their opponents.”

Much of the debate in the case hinges on the so-called “No Surprises” briefings that senior public servants used to convey the information to National Cabinet Ministers during the 2017 election campaign. These briefings are supposed to be used to alert government ministers to significant operational developments in their government departments.

But it’s hard to see how the Peters pension overpayments qualified as being a legitimate subject for a briefing. According to blogger No Right Turn, “WINZ had a legal duty to protect his privacy. And instead of doing that, they handed private data about a past issue which had been resolved to their satisfaction and which they had decided was not worthy of prosecution or further action to Ministers to be used for a shoddy political smear” – see: Winston is right.

According to the blogger, Peters is therefore right to characterise the leak as “malicious” and “repugnant”, and he believes those involved “absolutely deserve to be taken to the cleaners over this”.

Similar arguments have been made by rightwing commentator Matthew Hooton, who says the “no surprises” briefing policy has become corrupted, leading to its misuse for political and anti-democratic advantage of governments – see: Good may come from Peters’ lawsuit.

According to Hooton, in recent administrations, “scuttlebutt” about political opponents would be passed on by government departments under the auspices of the need to know in case it becomes public, but this political dirt was then likely to become public through this very process.

Hooton finds it hard to believe that the two ministers who were briefed – Anne Tolley and Paula Bennett – wouldn’t have misused the dirt on Peters by leaking it. But he says that’s only natural, as politicians can hardly be blamed for doing what politicians do, and really it’s the job of officials to keep information to themselves. He’s astounded that senior public servants could possibly believe it was right to hand the information over to campaigning politicians.

For more on the history of the “no surprises” briefing policy, and how it has been misused, it’s also worth reading John Tamihere’s column from last year: Peters right to pursue leak in court.

In this, he argues that public servants should have been extra careful during the election period not to involve themselves in politicised actions, and the officials who decided to pass the political dirt onto National politicians would have known this information would hurt Peters and affect the democratic process.

With the High Court trial in full swing, we are now seeing the politicians having to explain themselves. For the latest on Anne Tolley’s involvement in spreading the Peters information, see Isaac Davison’s Winston Peters’ pension overpayment: Anne Tolley admits telling staff, family members.

According to this, Tolley shared the dirt on Peters with staff and family members. Furthermore, the information was passed onto others in Tolley’s office.

Not everyone following the High Court trial necessarily sees Peters as being the victim. Newsroom co-editor Tim Murphy, is covering the trial in detail, and portrays the leak of Peters’ pension information as being the work of a “whistleblower”. The implication is that Peters deserved to be exposed – see Murphy’s latest report from the courtroom: Minister told husband, sister about Peters’ super.

In this, Murphy also reports the arguments of Tolley and Bennett’s lawyer, Bruce Gray QC, who suggests that the release of the dirt on Peters was in the public interest. Gray says: “For senior politicians seeking high office there are things which the public are legitimately interested in and may be entitled to know, that need to be considered.” And he bats away the notion that Peters might have an expectation of privacy: “sadly for those who bring themselves into the public eye, it’s not one-size-fits-all. It is case-by-case and person-by-person.”

The same article also reports on the other minister briefed about Peters, Paula Bennett, who says she informed National’s campaign strategist, Steven Joyce, when he expressed concern that the media were about to publish scandalous details about Bennett’s own private life. She claims she wanted to reassure him that a looming expose in the media would actually be about Peters rather than her.

Murphy also reports on the testimony of other journalists summoned as witnesses – see: Who leaked? Journalists’ views differ. In this, Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper is reported as blaming the National Party for the leak, while Newsroom’s Melanie Reid pointed in another direction: “Reid said her anonymous informant had imparted unhappiness at the fate of former Greens co-leader Metiria Turei over welfare payments when Peters’ overpayment had been quietly tidied away.”

In another article, Murphy reports on the trial discussions of how Peters came to claim the wrong level of superannuation, together with the role of Peters’ partner in the issue – see: Trotman forced out of Winston’s shadow.

Despite all the focus on who filled in Peters’ application form, and who was at fault, the article notes that the Chief High Court Judge, Justice Geoffrey Venning “said the case was one of breach of privacy and it was accepted a mistake had been made on the form. He did not expect to spend much time on the form-filling in his judgment.”

Finally, given that the Peters’ court case involves the politicisation of the public service, it’s useful to reflect on the fact that today is New Zealand’s first official “Public Service Day”, celebrating the anniversary of the day the Public Service Act 1912 became law, establishing a politically neutral and professional public service – see Minister of State Services, Chris Hipkins’ Celebrating NZ’s first Public Service Day.

This month’s chart looks at New Zealand’s 2017-18 GDP (of $288 billion). The chart uses official data, with appropriate re-accounting, as presented to this year’s New Zealand Association of Economists’ Conference (also here, and see slides here); and taking note of our need to move from “primitive capitalism” to “economic capitalism” (see article here).
In the chart, the figures for ‘NZ Superannuation’, ‘Transfer Benefits’, ‘Health’, ‘Education’, ‘Other Spending’, and ‘Surplus’ are exactly as in the May 2017 Budget Statement. (I avoided using the 2018 Budget, because the presentation of information for public consumption this year was far too opaque. In previous years, Key Facts for Taxpayers gave a succinct summary of public revenue and expenses, albeit using our time-worn outdated public accounting conventions.)
My innovations have been to redefine Gross Public Revenue – giving a more accurate and intuitive measure of the size of the public hemisphere (refer to my Liberal Mercantilism and Economic Capitalism) – and then to reclassify income tax concessions as ‘Public Equity Benefits’ (refer to my Policy Observatory Report, Public Equity and Tax-Benefit Reform) and to expose the large remaining share of public income as ‘Implicit Subsidies’.
In the pie-chart, the coloured slices together (44.7%) represent the public hemisphere of the 2017-18 New Zealand economy. By subtraction, the remaining 55.3% represents the ‘private hemisphere’. The public hemisphere is calculated as 33% of GDP (gross domestic product, the total economic ‘pie’), plus indirect taxes, plus government income from sources other than taxation. (The true public hemisphere would be closer to 50% of GDP if we added local government rates. In the interests of simplicity, local government has been left out of my picture. I have also excluded Accident Compensation levies.)
Public Equity Benefits represent the accumulation of implicit cash benefits arising from the 10.5%, 17.5% and 30% concessionary rates of personal income tax. These benefits are regressive, and unconditional, presently maxing at $9,080 per year ($175 per week) for individuals in receipt of $70,000 (or more) before tax. Persons receiving $48,000 before tax presently receive an annual Public Equity Benefit of $8,420. (These figures have been – and will be – valid for the entire 2010s’ decade.)
Wearing my accountant’s hat, I am not advocating what benefits people should get; simply I am describing what people do receive, unconditionally, from public revenue. (Most of us receive income from private and public sources.) Like democracy, however (and changing my hat), universal public benefits must be good; the problem is that higher earners get more than their share, just as before 1890 (in democracy’s early years) men of property had more general election votes than other men (and women got no votes at all).
Implicit Subsidies are largely received by organisations and land-owners; many can be classed as corporate welfare. They include the five cents in the dollar discount on company taxation (the statutory company tax rate is 28%, in contrast with the personal tax rate of 33%). They include all other corporate tax concessions. They include the proceeds of tax avoidance and evasion. They also include tax concessions to charities. And they include tax not paid on rent attributable to owner-occupied properties.
Implicit Subsidies are more regressive than are Public Equity Benefits. Though some of them are justifiable, nevertheless we require public accounting standards that make all subsidies explicit.
Good public accounting standards inform good policy. Good capitalism acknowledges both economic hemispheres, private and public.  Bad capitalist accounting disguises (even to intelligent people) how underprivileged people receive less than their democratic share of publicly-sourced income. Transparent public hemisphere accounting is the necessary sunlight that disinfects primitive capitalism.
Public Equity Benefits and Implicit Subsidies belong in the public hemisphere, not the private hemisphere.

We often hear that the average annual wage in New Zealand is around $55,000; slightly more than $1,000 gross per week. This is misleading, it is the average for people in regular fulltime employment.

This month’s chart shows incomes as understood by Inland Revenue. The data includes “New Zealand Superannuation and major social welfare benefits, but excludes ACC levies, Working for Families and Independent Earner tax credits” (and excludes Accommodation Supplements).

The included benefits, at least for Inland Revenue accounting purposes, are grossed up to make them comparable to wages. Thus the data include self-employed people, casually employed people, students and beneficiaries; people who work variable paid hours.

Ten percent of taxpayers now declare zero (or less) income; many of these will be people claiming business losses to offset salary or rental income. The intent of running a landlording enterprise or a business at a loss is almost certainly to avoid paying income tax, and being liable for other tax-like payments such as Child Support.

The most common (modal) income bracket is between $10,000 and $20,000. This is the income bracket of most beneficiaries, including superannuitants and tertiary students.

The median taxable income (50th percentile) is $30,000; up from $23,000 ten years ago. While this represents a 30% increase in nominal median income, after allowing for 17% inflation over those ten years, it’s a 13% real increase.

Median taxable real incomes have increased on average just over 1% per year, from one very low figure to another very low figure. Most of this small real income gain will be due to increased toil – more toil means both more paid hours and more onerous employer expectations per paid hour – rather than as the productivity dividend that economic growth is supposed to yield. (Though not able to be read from the chart, the average taxpayer gross income for 2018/19 comes out at $43,500, 28% higher than in 2008/09, 11% higher after accounting for inflation. The chart shows that more than 60% of income earners receive less than this average income, reflecting the high level of skew in the income distribution.)

The 90th percentile income has reached $94,000, up from $72,000. 8½ percent of taxpayers pay tax on annual incomes over $100,000, compared to 4 percent in the year to March 2009. (Actual incomes in 2008/09 will have fallen well short of Treasury projections, however, given the financial crisis that was not predicted by Treasury at the time of the 2008 Budget.)

A typical household – calculated here as two people grossing $60,000 – will net about $51,000 per year (after tax and ACC levies). After $25,000 rent, they are left $26,000 ($500 per week) to pay for everything else, and for dependents. For many, that’s 80 hours of weekly time in paid work (or being available for work, preparing for work, or travelling to work) to create a household disposable income of $500 per week (less if paying Child Support or repaying a loan).

While transfers in the form of Family Tax Credits and Accommodation Supplements help, they are withdrawn as such households increase their taxable incomes.

Many median-income households are stuck in an income trap not much above the line of financial poverty, and inside the line of time poverty.

What of below-median income households? What of those individuals disconnected from whanau? It can be no surprise that central Auckland has the feel of a third‑world city.