Greed is good?
As we look back on the last 25 years of neo-liberal “reforms”, including User Pays; the canning of “Labour’s” superannuation savings plan in 1975 (by Muldoon – after being elected into office with his infamous “Dancing Cossacks” TV ad); and National’s continuing high popularity in the polls, despite their avowed proposal to sell-down 49% of several State assets, – it seems abundantly clear who has been pulling the “strings”.
No, it’s not Washington. Nor the Bilderbergers. Nor the UN/New World Order/Illuminati.
The answer is mind-numbingly far more prosaic: it’s us – the Baby Boomer generation. The 1960s and 1970s rebellious youth weren’t just an “aberration” – they were a clear signal that the Baby Boomers had arrived; could be inclined to incredible selfishness (hence the term the “Me Generation”); and we voted individually for personal gain – on a collective basis.
Yep. We have seen the “enemy” – and it’s us; graying; self-centered; resentful of the young (who we’ve well and truly shafted); and looking back at ourselves in the mirror, wondering where it all went wrong.
The case of Surgeons Ian Penny and Gary Hooper, who tried to rort the tax system using Trusts and companies – even though they had graduated BEFORE student loans and fees were implemented in 1992 – is the clearest example ever of our collective unbridled selfishness.
A court battle is over for two surgeons who challenged Inland Revenue over claims they tried to avoid tax bills worth tens of thousands of dollars.
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against Ian Penny and Gary Hooper, saying they underpaid themselves from their own businesses to avoid the top personal tax rate.
The issue arose after the previous Labour-led Government raised the top personal tax rate to 39%, compared to the company rate which was then 33%.
The orthopaedic surgeons openly paid themselves a lower salary than the market rate, arguing that they had a choice about how they operated their business.
They tried to challenge a Court of Appeal decision that found in favour of Inland Revenue, which said the surgeons had paid themselves salaries too small to be commercially realistic.
It said they were therefore able to avoid paying the top tax rate, while the balance of their businesses’ profits went as dividends to family trusts.
The trusts funded items such as a loan for one surgeon, and a holiday home for the other.
Inland Revenue said using those business structures to create artificially low salaries amounted to tax avoidance, saving each man between $20,000 and $30,000 a year for three years, beginning in 2002.
Supreme Court Justice Blanchard on Wednesday delivered a judgement supporting that argument, ordering Mr Penny and Mr Hooper to pay Inland Revenue $25,000 in court costs.
Mr Hooper told [Radio New Zealand ]Checkpoint the court has created a salary benchmark that is higher than the one countless private practitioners have been using.
He says they have been following Inland Revenue advice and calculating their salaries based on public hospital rates.
An Inland Revenue deputy commissioner welcomed the ruling, telling Checkpoint it clearly states and reaffirms what the department’s commissioner felt was the case all along. Carolyn Tremain says IRD has yet to fully absorb the implications and consequences of the ruling.
PricewaterhouseCoopers John Shewan, who appeared as a witness for the surgeons, said the case is important for individuals and firms. He said tens of millions of dollars may now be claimed by Inland Revenue from cases it still has open on this matter.
Source: Radio New Zealand
Surgeons Ian Penny and Gary Hooper set up companies, owned indirectly through trusts, to buy their surgical services and paid themselves artificially low salaries.
After 2000, Hooper’s personal income fell from $650,000 to $120,000 a year. Penny’s dropped from $302,000 to $125,000, and then to $100,000, while the income of their companies grew.
Source: Dominion Post
What makes this case of case of tax avoidance stand out is that none of it was ever necessary in the first place.
Dr Ian Penny received his Bachelor of Medicine Bachelor (MB ChB) of Surgery from Otago University in 1981. He became a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in 1990.
Dr Gary Hooper received his Bachelor of Medicine Bachelor (MB ChB) of Surgery from Otago University in 1978 and became a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in 1985.
In simple terms, they graduated as doctors in the late ’70s and early ’80s. Tertiary education then was still nominally free. Plus, student allowances were available to most students,
“Up until 1992, nearly every student (86.4 percent) studying at a public tertiary education institution in New Zealand received a living allowance or grant while they studied.
Prior to the mid 1970s, student support was based on a system of bursaries and scholarships. In 1976, a new system of government-funded tertiary bursaries was introduced. This included a study or living costs grant that was available to most students.”
Student fees and student loans came into effect in 1992, during the Bolger-led National Government, when Ruth Richardson was Minister of Finance (and coincidentally the same year that Shortland Street came on air).
In simpler terms, Dr Penny and Dr Hooper enjoyed the benefit of near-free tertiary education before fees were raised in 1992. They had no student loans to repay, as medical students currently do, and may well have benefitted from receiving a Student Allowance.
Contrast their free tuition with that of medical students, in the 21st Century: “on average medical students will graduate with around $80,000 of debt and nearly 90% will have a student loan“, according to the New Zealand Medical Students’ Association in April, last year.
So with a free education; in receipt of student allowances; and no student loan; Dr’s Penny and Hooper were, as Revenue Minister Peter Dunne stated;
“… the important thing about this decision is to bear in mind the scale of what was happening. This wasn’t people minimising their income because they were reinvesting in their business. This was people minimising their income because they were actually minimising their tax liability but still enjoying the full benefits of the income they were in reality earning.“
So not only did these gentlemen benefit from a free education – but they were now minimising their income because they were actually minimising their tax liability [whilst] still enjoying the full benefits of the income they were in reality earning.”
God, you’ve no idea how sick this incident has made me. Let me explain why.
Prior to the introduction of “Rogernomics” in 1984 (and National’s addition from 1990 onward), education in this country had been free (or as close as possible to free) to nearly all New Zealanders. Education whether at Primary School or University was funded by the previous generation; our Mums & Dads; Grandmothers & Grand dads. The idea was terribly simple; education was a right, and not to be determined by ability to pay.
In turn, as we graduated from schools and Universities, we – my generation, the “Baby Boomers” – were to fund our children through their education, through our taxes.
Except, it did not quite happen that way.
In 1984 we unknowingly elected a Labour Government that had been taken over by a secret cabal of neo-liberals, conservatives, and proponants of the Free Market. A raft of radical changes were implemented throughout the economy and impacting directly on society.
Despite public objection; mass protests; and even vocal opposition from within the Government by some Labour MPs such as Jim Anderton, Labour was re-elected in 1987. Curiously, they had increased their majority from 55 to 57.
During Labour’s two terms (1984 to 1990), they cut taxes twice, and implemented a new tax in 1986, called GST.
National followed, implementing User Pays in tertiary education whilst cutting taxes in 1996 and 1998.
In 2008, despite evidence that the world was plunging into a global recession, John Key promised that National would again cut taxes. As New Zealand went into deep recession; unemployment rose; businesses closed down – National cut taxes in April 2009 and October last year.
Most of the public, it seems, will swallow User Pays if they stand to reap a benefit from tax cuts.
The social contract therefore, was well and truly broken between our (the Baby Boomers) generation, and our parents/grandparents.
We had taken their gift – that of free education which they had paid for – but we decided not to pass it on to our children. Instead, we accepted one tax cut after another. And social services were either cut or User Pays applied, to pay for those tax cuts.
To my generation of fellow Baby Boomers, I say this; we’ve well and truly shafted our own children. We denied them the very same opportunities of a free education that our parents had bequeathed to us. Instead, we voted ourselves seven hefty tax-cuts; instigated User Pays; and left our children saddled with $13.9 billion in student debt.
Is it any wonder that our children our leaving New Zealand in greater and greater numbers? They’re not just emigrating to seek better paying jobs – they’re sticking it to us for our unmitigated greed. Whether consciously or sub-consciously, our children realise what our generation has wrought, and by god, they are not happy.
No doubt there are some folk who will cheer on Drs Penny and Hooper. These people feel that paying taxes is “unfair” and that it is unreasonable for the State to take the money that they have worked hard for.
Perhaps I should take a moment to remind these people what their taxes were, and in many cases are still, used for…
Many of these assets no longer reside in public ownership – but they were originally built and maintained by previous generations of taxpayers; our parents, grandparents, et al.
As the Baby Boomer generation, what have we built and left our children?
$13.9 billion in student debt?
No wonder they are departing our shores…
But I leave the last word to this expat Kiwi, now living in Australia,
A Victorian-based Kiwi with a student loan debt, who did not want to be named because he did not want to be found by the Government, said he did not intend to pay back any of his student loan.
The 37-year-old’s loan was about $18,000 when he left New Zealand in 1997. He expected it was now in the order of $50,000. The man was not worried about being caught as the Government did not have his details and he did not want to return to New Zealand.
“I would never live there anyway, I feel just like my whole generation were basically sold down the river by the government. I don’t feel connected at all, I don’t even care if the All Blacks win.
“I just realised it was futile living [in New Zealand] trying to pay student loans and not having any life, so I left. My missus had a student loan and she had quite a good degree and she had paid 99c off the principal of her loan after working three years.”
Source: Dominion Post
For a better New Zealand…
~ Cleaner rivers
~ No deep-sea oil drilling
~ Less on Roads - more on Rail
~ A Living wage at $18.40/hr
~ Marriage equality - Yay! Got that one!
~ Strong, effective Unions
~ No secret free-trade deals
~ Breakfast/lunches in our schools
~ Introducing Civics into our school curriculum
~ Cut back on the liquor industry
~ A fairer, progressive tax system
~ Fully funded, free healthcare
~ Ditto for education, including Tertiary
~ Fund Pharmac for Pompe's Disease medication & other 'orphan' drugs
~ No state asset sales!
~ Rebuild public TV broadcasting!
~ Keeping farms in local ownership
~ Reduce poverty, like we reduced the toll for road-fatalities
~ Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!
~ Being nice to each other
- Letter to the Editor – a message to Cantabrians
- Letter to the Editor – fiscal irresponsibility by National
- Letter to the Editor – the PM? Or PM’s Office?
- Party Lists – Election 2014
- The Rise and Fall of John Key – who will be the next Leader of the National Party?
- Letter to the editor – fiscal prudence or another election bribe?
- Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 25 August 2014
- Radio NZ Debate: Bill English vs David Parker
- The Donghua Liu Affair: Evidence of Collusion between the NZ Herald and Immigration NZ?
- So who’s a “conspiracy theorist” now?!
- Letter to the Editor – Key’s credibility, blown in the wind…
- My political compass…
- I do not condone this…
- Letter to the Editor – Transparency in government – do we have it or not?!
- Letter to the Editor – The Marianna’s Trench or Pluto?! WTF was Key holidaying?!
- Letter to the Editor – Just what is the Prime Minister’s role?!
- “Dirty Politics” and The Teflon Man
- 2014 – Ongoing jobless tally
- Letter to the Editor: no phones in Hawaii, eh?
- When Stupid meets Hypocrisy, the result is David Farrar – *Update*
- Key’s ducking for cover – utterly unbelievable!!!
- Letter to the Editor: National’s blighted future?
- Young Zealanders – Rebels WITH a cause.
- When Stupid meets Hypocrisy, the result is David Farrar
- When Karma caught up with Cameron Slater
- On course for a change of government – hold her steady!
- Death threats made to rightwing blogger?
- The Mendacities of Mr Key #7: What is Dear Leader actually saying here?
- David Farrar – A Question for you please?
- State propaganda on TVNZ – pssst, just don’t mention the war! Er, Election!
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- 320,434 hits