Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘intergenerational equity’

Tax cuts or Super?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 27th, 2010

Over at Policy Progress David Choat has written up a few observations on the future affordability of New Zealand Superannuation, based on presentations at the recent Retirement Income Policy and Intergenerational Equity Conference. Choat looks at various projections of the cost of the ‘retirement boom’ and some of the alternative options. He concludes by essentially arguing we have a choice: change our current entitlements or increase taxes to keep them as they are.

That conclusion highlights the folly of the arguments people like Don Brash have been putting forward. Brash argues that current Super entitlements are unaffordable. Fullstop. Brash and his contemporaries in National have spent years arguing that massive tax cuts are affordable and necessary. They’ve conveniently overlooked one of the biggest longterm implications – less money to pay for the baby boomer’s retirement!

I want to see New Zealand Superannuation remain as it is, a universal entitlement from the age of 65. But John Key’s promise to resign rather than cut it looks pretty hollow given his total lack of a plan for how to pay for it. In 10-15 years time when the crunch comes, Key will be off sunning himself in Hawaii while future generations work out how to plug the massive hole he and his crew have left us with.


It’s a demographic challenge

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 2nd, 2010

A few weeks ago I did a post on the home ownership dream that promoted quite a lot of discussion and over 100 comments. It was prompted by some of the reading and research that I’ve been doing on intergenerational equity. I’m currently reading a book by David Willetts called The Pinch, subtitled “How the baby boomers took their children’s future – and why they should give it back”. The title is a bit provocative, but the book is well researched and presents a whole heap of data to back up Willetts’ arguments.

One possible explanation he puts forward for the rising cost of housing is simply demographic. Throughout our lives we accumulate wealth. In our older years we spend it, or we pass it down to the next generation. But an equitable transition of wealth between generations assumes an equitable distribution of the population amongst age groups, which clearly doesn’t exist. The baby boomers aren’t to blame for the fact that they’re currently controlling a disproportionate share of the world’s wealth, if you want to blame anyone; blame Hitler.

It’s not just housing either. A similar argument can be made about employment. For example, let’s assume than within an organisation there are a certain number of senior managers, a certain number of middle-managers, a certain number of entry-level jobs etc. We all start somewhere, usually at the entry-level, and then we progress throughout our careers. But a smaller generational cohort following a larger one is likely to find some congestion at the top. The boomers have reached the top and still have about a decade to go before retirement. And given we are living longer and many don’t want to retire at 65 anyway, it could be a lot longer.

Fast forward another decade and that’s when the baby boom pinch will really start to be felt. With half a million extra New Zealanders over the age of 65 while the workforce remains about the same size, it’s clear the govt of the day is going to face some real challenges. The cost of NZ Super will roughly double, not to mention the cost of healthcare and other social services such as aged care. If we’re to argue that each generation has a responsibility to care for those who came before and those who come after (elderly and children), where does that leave a generation disproportionately smaller?


The home ownership dream

Posted by Chris Hipkins on April 8th, 2010

The dream of home ownership has never been less obtainable, so media reports would lead us to believe. But is that a fair claim? I got the Parliamentary Library to compile some figures for me so that I could work out how much someone from each of the last four ‘generations’ could expect to pay for their first home and how that compared to what they were likely to be earning.

In the 1930s before the outbreak of the Second World War the average weekly wage was about ?5 and 2 shillings. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but when translated into today’s dollars it works out to about $460. The average price of houses was about ?870, the equivalent of about three and a half years worth of wages.

Veterans returning home from the war faced a bigger sacrifice to get themselves into their own homes in the 1950s. They would’ve received an average weekly income of about ?9 and 2 shillings. That’s about $560 a week in today’s dollars. They could pick up a house for about ?2400, the equivalent of just over five years worth of wages (although to offset the extra cost there were a lot of grants/loans etc available for returned servicemen).

Fast forward to the 1980s when most of their children were in the workforce and buying their first homes and things had returned back to their pre-war levels. The ‘Baby Boomers’ were earning on average about $200 a week, or $600 in today’s dollars. They were paying about $36,000 for their first home, equivalent to about three and a half years worth of wages.

Hit the fast forward button again and we arrive at the present day, where average weekly earnings amount to $809 a week and the average house price is about $416,000. Applying the same calculations, someone on an average income and buying a home at the average house price can expect to pay the equivalent of about 10 years worth of wages. So it’s true, owning your own home has never been more of a hurdle.


Give kids the vote, or at least give it to their parents

Posted by Phil Twyford on July 5th, 2009

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?