The National Government’s decision to suspend payments to the Super Fund has put the superannuation consensus on the skids. Late baby boomers like me are uneasy about the security of our super. Gen X and Yers are grumpy about the prospect of paying taxes for baby boomers’ pensions when it is likely by the time they reach retirement the cupboard will be bare. Bernard Hickey calls it inter-generational theft. Baby boomers got free tertiary education, explosive capital gain on their houses, and will make damn sure they get their super. Gen X and Yers got student loans, were priced out of the housing market, and can’t rely on super. His advice: Get out of Dodge.
The trouble with Hickey’s advice is that baby boomer tyranny is pretty much a fixture across the rich world. Japan is an extreme example. A recent study shows approximately 24% of eligible voters in Japan are parents of children under 18, whilst those concerned about pension levels (55 years +) constitute 43% of voters. The result? Great pensions and policies for the ageing. And lousy policies for families. No wonder fertility rates are among the lowest in the world.
Rhema Vaithianathan, an economist at Auckland University’s Business School, who is a friend of mine and has done some work on the economic impact of the Government’s super city plans, was in Tokyo recently and did some research with a Japanese colleague on a possible solution to this. The idea, called Demeny voting after its originator Paul Demeny (1986), is to give parents the right to vote on behalf of their children until they are old enough to vote for themselves. (You thought reducing the voting age to 16 was radical!)
Apply the Demeny principle and the voting power of Japanese parents rises from 24 to 37%, while the over-55s decreases from 43 to 35%, giving Japanese politicians a good incentive to pay more attention to intergenerational equity.
Dr Vaithianathan argues the Demeny principle could provide the answer to New Zealand’s own problems with intergenerational equity. Our fertility rate is higher than Japan’s but it is declining fast. Over-55s are 13% of the population but this is expected to double in the next 40 years.
“Why should I, as a member of a household with two adults and no children, have more voting power than a solo parent down the road with three children?” Dr Vaithianathan says. “After all, her children inherit the future of this country, and they, via their parents initially, should have a say in what happens.”
Worth considering?
Definitely worth considering. I think it’s an intriguing idea that could indeed go some way addressing the issue of political pandering to the boomer demographic. I’m of boomer vintage like you Phil, but I’m angry about the deal my kids get from “the system”.
Ideally the young folk would organise themselves into a formidable political force and dictate their own terms. But since that isn’t going to happen (as ever it’s a puzzle to me why not!) this voting system is one possibility to consider. We need something to build the consideration of long term issues into political decision making, and parents of the young have the best reasons to think long term.
So thanks for the interesting post. I can hear some ugly right wing or racist ranting on this already (I’m sure it will appear in this thread soon enough), but I hope you’ll also find that there will also be many voices in support.
“Why should I, as a member of a household with two adults and no children, have more voting power than a solo parent down the road with three children?” Dr Vaithianathan says.
Last time I checked, the New Zealand system was set up so that Vaithianathan and the solo parent down the road had precisely equal voting power: they each get one vote.
This isn’t to rubbish the idea completely, but I’d need to see an argument much more convincing—at that takes into account much more than just super and fertility—before I could get behind an idea that bears an uncomfortably close resemblance to the three-fifths compromise.
Oh great, we could vote on behalf of our children. What if one of my kids want to vote Greens and we want them to vote Act. What if I was on the Maori roll – should I cast a vote for my child for the Maori electorate or General electorate.
Actually, if the Maori family down the road has six kids and I have two, why not include the number of kids in the calculation of the numbers on the Maori electoral roll if we can cast votes for them. That`ll be fun, given the percentage of kids who are Maori is increasing. Don’t tell the Maori Party, they`ll include it as part of its policy. We could have tons of Maori seats, given the increasing number of Maori kids in society. That will really sink Labour as without the Maori seats they wont govern. And Labour wont get them any time soon. Is this another ploy to increase fertility in a similar way that Vaithianathan’s report on female genital cutting claims this promotes pre-marital investment associated with better marital outcomes.
[Sorry dave, this was held in the spam queue, maybe the link?
- admin]
I would never ever support a parent voting on behalf of a child.
The quickest way to distprt democracy is to assume that the ideas of one person are superior to the ideas of someone else.
Does this mean that parents with 10 children would have 12 votes in total? When they have such problems with a basic concept like birth control?
Very pleased to see Phil advocating that people should get more than one vote, if their family is more affected by the decision of the Government.
That principle then leads to my pet policy of no representation without taxation. It is of course unfair that those who pay no taxes should determine how much those who do pay tax, pay. So you would only become a registered voter once your have paid more tax than the cost of your birth, schooling, healthcare, WFF subsidies etc.
I am sure IRD could keep track of everyone’s net tax position. And it might even encourage people to voluntarily pay extra tax, so they can become a voter faster.
Deleted. Lets try and keep it a bit more civil eh? Phil
Does this mean that parents with 10 children would have 12 votes in total?
I posted a comment that said something similar last night. So has it been censored?
.. well that worked. Maybe it was the system
David, and I thought you were a democrat! The Demeny principle is designed to incentivise politicians making long term decisions in the interests of future voters. Your pet policy would have the reverse effect, restricting the franchise to exclude the young, the poor, the disabled, nuns and monks, and the many who opt to spend parts of their lives on important and socially useful but often badly paid pursuits – artists for example, or raising kids, or volunteering in the community.
dave – Yeah it would under the Demeny principle. 2 parents + 10 kids = 12 votes.
DPF: universal suffrage recognises the fundamental moral equality of all people. We all have interests in this society, and no-one’s interests are inherently any more worthy than anyone elses. The only fair way of distributing power then is for everyone’s voice to count equally, regardless of wealth.
But thank you for confirming that inside every tory, there’s a filthy aristocrat screaming to get out.
Phil: David, and I thought you were a democrat!
Oh, he is – it’s just that his conception of “democracy” is that held in the early C19th by the upper classes, before the passage of the Second Great Reform Act. That narrow, stunted and unequal vision is why many people’s ancestors fled to New Zealand, to found a better and more equal society.
Idiot/Savant – Couldnt agree more. Or David, are you having a laugh?
Certainly the scriptwriters of The New Statesman thought the idea was the perfect parody of thrusting Thatcherism.
“a solo parent down the road with three children?” to miss quote a Toyota: “but of course you would say that” they are likely to be Labour voters.
I think David Farrars system is much better. Only nett taxpayers get the right to vote on hoe their taxes are spent. Labour spent 5 years using WFF to bribe their constituents and drive up income taxes for a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.
@Idiot – our society is becoming less and less democrat. We are experiencing tyranny of the un-productive over the productive, which is another reason I personally will be encouraging my only son to leave as soon as possible.
This is simply a “I know what’s best for my kids” scenario which is a pretty accurate concept.
Apply it then to smacking for corrective purposes.
What a bizarre contradiction the Labour party is in these days.
It is really hard to know where to start rubbishing this nonsense. To start with, it was Cullens plan that the NZ Super Fund was for when there were surpluses. Labour left us facing 10 years of deficits. Remember?.
Phil, you have one of those gold-plated MP super schemes so maybe you are not really that worried about its security. And that’s just the first two sentences!.
Our fertility rate is not declining fast at all. Our birth rate is currently higher than it’s been for decades. I blame WFF. As population growth is an even bigger worry than global cooling it is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Good idea DPF, maybe that should be extended to those actually paying taxes from productive money. A differentiation in voting power would seem reasonable, based on whether tax was paid on income from the productive sector. People that pay more tax from productive sector income get proportionally more votes. That would mean that politicians and government lackeys obtain limited voting power. Some intermediary categories would be required, such as teachers and the like. (Hence teachers at private schools would have more voting power, as would doctors and nurses in private hospitals). This system would also reduce problems with election funding and the like in an equitable manner, i.e. billionaires that do not pay any tax would not be able to rig the system.
Those baby boomers were once babies and it was their parents – mostly men because in those days women were not encouraged to work after having children – who accepted the responsibilty (under a top tax rate of 66%) to care for the children of New Zealand. And remember this was male work force that was greatly depleted by a World War. The Governments of the day also accepted responsibilty and adjusted the tax so that those with children paid less tax. Income was split for tax purposes. That society provided the maternity hospitals (in those days you stayed in hospital for 14 day after giving birth – they said that mothers with children needed the rest and new mothers had to be taught how to care for their babies), the public hospitals, the kindergartens, the primary schools, the intermediate schools the secondary schools and the Universities. All free. The main difference from today is that it was designed around a different economic structure. People wanted New Zealand to be a great country and it was. Then in the 1980s we were sold Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan’s monetarism and it is that economic policy that has destroyed New Zealand. Now we have the rights of the individual and not the emphasis on public good. People carp on about how life is not fair. Those wicked baby boomers, How taxes are too high. And now there is talk about votes for kids!! What a load of nonsense. If you want things to be better for this country and incidently yourself, get rid of moneterism, lower taxes for the poor, increase benefit rates, increase the tax rate for the rich, increase the minumum wage, legislate for a capital gains tax, a Tobin tax, ring fence property tax deductions, split the family income 50/50 and reintroduce estate duty. We would have less crime, murder, poverty, unemployment, number of benefits paid, child abuse, drug abuse and even the number of solo mothers. Read “The Spirit Level” by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett if you don’t believe me. Another good book is False Dawn by John Gray.
I do like it when people bite. I was pointing out the arguments you may get if you depart from one (adult) person one vote.
I’m disappointed David, I thought it was a fine idea given how few of us pay nay nett income tax
Interesting idea, but on an even broader level surely our goal should be to encourage people to vote not out of self interest but with the interests of society in mind. Elections have become far too much about “what’s in it for me?” and less about “what kind of society do I want to live in?”.
Patricia, I was wondering what was wrong with your plan to tax the hell out of high earners (the financial achievers) and give it to the poor and beneficiaries to make a better world. Then it came to me. It doesn’t bloody work !!!
For a start, if you make life too hard for the rich the bastards will move. If someone out there thinks that higher benefits will lead to less beneficiaries and the resultant social problems please advise contact details as I have a big bridge in Auckland that I would like to sell them.
@Chris Hipkins…Labour relied on their self-interested constituents to buy ate least two elections with Working For Families.
Aha, there we have Hipkins laying it bare for all to see: we vote to indicate what “sort of society we wish to live in”, so he and his mates can then go about working that out in nice little rules and putting it all in place…[deleted - abusive].
I will leave the country if this silly idea is implemented! (Or not vote for a party that would bring this in). Why should a family with 8 children have more votes than a family with two? Why should a vote be given on behalf of a person when that person cannot decide where the vote should go? This kind of policy is open to abuse, and can you imagine people breeding for political purposes? It is undemocratic. Parent and child may have very different political views.
In 2008 my much younger stepbrother really liked Peter Dunne when asked why he said it was because of his hair – he was serious.
I don’t believe that the older generation will sell my generation out in 20 years. Most baby boomers love their children and want them to have good futures.
P.S I’m a left wing Labour Party supporter.
At the risk of this going off thread I think a few people above starting with Dave @ 5.14am who don’t understand that Maori kids do count when parliamentary seats are sized. The formula is based on total population not the number of eligible voters. So bizarre as it might sound the number of individuals on the Maori roll is not just a result of low enrolment of eligible Maori but because there are fewer Maori over 18 eligible to enrol is lower than in general seats. So for Maori on the Maori roll, because they have more children, younger, their vote is relatively more valuable.
A silly idea that would never get public backing (not that that always stops gov’ts!), but no, I would also leave the country if the idea was implemented, it’s like saying that kids should have the right to drive, drink or get married. The kind of society I want to live in is a far cry from the crime ridden one we currently have.
I don’t think Phil is seriously proposing this idea – he just thinks it’s interesting.
The bigger issue is actually related to the earlier part of his post – the benefits that baby-boomers have enjoyed which are now denied to those in Gen X and Y. As someone born in 1982 I fall bang in the middle of that. A classic example is house prices: I have a pretty good job yet can’t see myself realistically owning a home for the next decade. When my parents were my age they were only three years away from buying their first home, and they didn’t even need a mortgage.
I really want to say something on the matter that involved clown cars, but as I am betting it will be deleted, I will instead say this. I don’t this is not a good idea at all. There is a good reason why kids can’t get permanent tattoos or be married, same with voting. They need to wait untill they are mature enough to understand where they fall on the political spectrum, why, and how to vote accordingly. In other words, I agree with Spud (apart from the Boomers selling us out – I’ll believe it when I see it!)
but why stop at inter-generational equity?
surely parents with more girls sould get more votes to redress the far more substantial and far longer existing inequities based in gender.
and shouldn’t this be based on actual age rather than lose categories such as “boomer” – there would have to be some sort of sliding scale determined by how close one was to boomer and how close to gen X.
so his is Labour’s answer to the superanuation problem – fan the fires of inter-generational anatgonism. how depressing. how so like Muldoon.
You can certainly argue it that way (although the argument only arises in respect of the electorate vote and only if that M?ori lives in a marginal electorate), but you can also look at the other way:
People of M?ori descent make up 18% of the New Zealand normally resident population, yet only 14% of the voting-age population. Indeed, this might sound like an argument in favour of your proposal, but the idea is not “worth considering”, it is abhorrent. Extending the franchise *is* an idea worth considering, but extending the franchise to children and young people and then taking it away with the same act is too tortuous a proposal to believe.
Would Kate Sheppard had accepted that an interim solution to women not being denied the vote would have been to accept that men with wives would get a second vote?
Yeah – that last paragraph of mine should make a bit more sense … Would Kate Sheppard had accepted that an interim solution to women being denied the vote would have been to accept that men with wives would get a second vote?
johnbt
It has worked before and is working. As I said, read Wilkinson and Picketts The Spirit Level. Of 21 rich countries studied those with the highest income inequality had the greatest social problems. They were US then New Zealand, Australia, Portugal and UK. Funnily enough it was US, UK, Australia and New Zealand that embraced mnonetarism with such fervour. I don’t know about Portugal. Before monetarism was introduced New Zealand had very low income inequality and fewer social problems.
As far as the rich is concerned then those who are not prepared to work for the betterment of New Zealand should leave. We can’t afford to have such people living here. I am sure they would be much happier being rich elsewhere. Even talking about votes for the kids is silly. Monetarism is the problem and once that economic policy is abandoned then New Zealand will start to improve again.
As far as the rich is concerned then those who are not prepared to work for the betterment of New Zealand should leave.
What, the rich don’t work?
My experience of the rich is they work very very hard and always have done. Do you really want these people to leave the country? They probably employ half our workforce.
Phil
I think the idea is a fun one to kick around, but ultimately I’m persuaded by the arguments channeled on this thread by I/S and others that any “voting on behalf of” regime can lead to consent being assumed on dubious grounds, creating some nefarious incentives without improving outcomes much.
Also, I’m just astounded at DPF on this thread. I see he’s backpeddling now, talking about “merely pointing out arguments blah blah blah,” but his original comment called the only-rich-people-vote “my pet policy.” That is a lot more that just throwing a for-instance-hypothetical around, and there wasn’t a hint or irony or parody in the comment. Should DPF ever decide to run for anything (unlikely I think, but possible nonetheless) I predict that his opponents would take great pleasure in reciting that line of his up and down the ward / electorate / whatever.
Surely a better way to stop intergenerational theft would be for the New Zealand Labour Party to support, as a matter of policy, a capital gains tax?
Labour presided over a huge theft of income from my generation when it allowed house prices to double in just a few years. Michael Cullen refused the Reserve Bank the ability to even consider a capital gains tax in response.
This is typical of the New Zealand Labour Party – shelving the blame on the public for making the wrong decision rather than yourselves, and saying you’ll only come out in support when it has clear and substantial support (in this case, hypothetically if children are counted in the vote).
Continuing on Dr Vaithianathan’s logic, I as a non-smoker and non-obese person demand more votes, as my life expectancy is likely to be longer, and thus I have more future to consider. I would suggest a weighting of 1.3, thank you.
“and there wasn’t a hint or irony or parody”
it was very obviously reductio ad absurdum, and very telling the sort of bitter comments from “liberals” it ellicited.
George D – you’ve got it backwards. As a non-smoker you’ll get to vote in more elections, over the extra 15 years you’re expected to live you’ll get to vote in five elections more than a smoker would. The smoker should therefore have their votes weighted higher so that their lifetime input into New Zealand democracy is equal to yours.
Patricia – Thanks for the Wilkinson and Picketts reference. I am going to get The Spirit Level. I have Richard Wilkinson’s The Impact of Inequality which is superb. We have to get inequality back on the agenda.
Well, Phil, “Demeny voting” is an interesting thought experiment, but let’s turn the rhetorical question at the end of your post around: Why should Phil Twyford (who happens to have a son) have more voting power than his good friend Helen Clark (who has no children at all)?”
I’m genuinely sorry about going there, Phil, but that’s the problem with pretty thought experiments. They’re seldom as attractive when brought down to specifics, and landing on your doorstep. But, to be blunt, I really hoped the idea that people who don’t have children are somehow ‘damaged goods’ or ’selfish’ had gone the way of the dodo. Apparently not.
No taxation without representation, and no representation unless you are a net New Zealand tax payer.
I am more than happy as an expatriate to give away my right to vote in NZ elections if all welfare beneficiaries did the same.
Well I’m still not happy am I, considering I still contribute net more in GST, alcohol tax, departure tax and NRWT/AIL as a tourist than they do.
I don’t like the idea of anyone voting on behalf of someone else. I would like to see the voting age reduced to 12 or lower. Most schools use local and general elections as good learning opportunities and our young people are just as capable of making an informed decision as older people. Parents voting for children is problematic as although parents are generally the best carers for their children, they are not always the best advocates for them (eg parents understanding of the education system is usually based on their own out-dated experience).
Cactus Kate – another closet aristocrat!
Got to love the closet aristocrats here. What is really telling is their pride in ignorance – they all seem to genuinely believe that people are more affected by government decisions if they have more money, and also believe that a vote is something for sale.
The obvious logical extension is that if paying 1x”net NZ citizen cost” being the sum of your upbringing, then you can just pay that a few more times over and get a few more votes.
Also good to see folk like Kate equating beneficiaries with rapists and murderers – an insighful example of accidental honesty if ever!
And that aside, all completely missing the point – it is not more than one vote per person, but a vote held in trust. If you vote on behalf of your kids, you are voting for their interests until they can do the same, thus ensuring a less distorted overall vote (the distortion being the artificial control of a voting age).
Cactus Kate – another closet aristocrat!
That’s not fair. If you visit her website you’ll find that she’s quite open about her utter disdain for the poor.
Thanks Phil for the recommendation of “The Impact of Inequality”. I haven’t read that one. It is so so good to read books by authors who can explain so clearly as to why and how things happen.
I do not believe it is any use what so ever to talk about any solutions for crime, murder, poverty, unemployment, number of benefits paid, child abuse and drug abuse in New Zealand when we have an economic policy that actually tolerates this. Everything relates back to economic policy that is used to run a country. The economic structure that was introduced in the 1980s introduced a dramatic change to New Zealand society. It even had a motto. “Greed is Good”. It changed a society that on the Gini Coefficient scale had much less income inequality and much less crime, murder, poverty, unemployment, number of benefits paid, child abuse and drug abuse to one that now tolerates all of this. Oh yes today we chatter on about how bad it all is and even talk about votes for kids. If you want to change any of the above you have to change the prevailing economic structure. Robert Skidelskey who is John Maynard Keynes biographer (incidentally I can recommend his website – he writes beautifully) said
“Keynes’s view was that we need different economic models at different times. The beauty of his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money was that it was general enough to accommodate a variety of models applicable to different conditions. Markets could behave in ways described by the classical and New Classical theories, but they need not. So it was important to take precautions against bad behaviour. Ultimately, the Keynesian revolution was a triumph not of good science over bad science, but of good judgment over bad judgment.”