(14-06-2023, 05:06 PM)dken31 Wrote: "Researchers for Stats NZ calculated around 155,000 households did not feel they had enough income to meet their everyday basic needs."
The problem is that what constitutes a basic need is constantly changing and so much of what is now considered a basic need would have been an absolute luxury 50 years ago. And that is why we can never "eradicate poverty" as all we'll actually succeed in doing is moving the goal posts of what is considered to be poverty.
I grew up in the 80s, pretty middle class I think, but our house wasn't properly insulated, heat pumps hadn't been invented, new clothes were a Christmas present, new shoes were a major event, we were allowed max one piece of fruit per day, we only had one family vehicle and eating out was super rare.
Wind back to my parents growing up in the 50s: I don't think Dad had shoes until he was 5, didn't eat out once once until he was a teenager, didn't have a car, didn't have a TV, house had no insulation, probably not even electric heaters when he was young. They were working class, but they definitely wouldn't have thought of themselves as impoverished.
Whereas now, a home has to be insulated with a heat-pump to qualify as "healthy", a TV is a necessity and most people have a pretty decent sized one (if that's what they're into). Eating out is common place, as are all manner of consumer electronics; I've even seen being able to fly back to the Islands to visit family being put forward as a basic "necessity". Clothes are cheap (unless you want name brand stuff, although name brands are still very commonly seen in lower-socioeconomic areas)
What has caught people out is that, apart from housing, the cost of living has been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper, allowing everyone to enjoy a far higher standard of living than in years gone by. Then, suddenly in the past year or two, cost of living has jumped up sharply making it difficult/impossible for many to continue enjoying the luxuries they'd grown accustomed to. And, for some, without the ability to adequately budget they're unable to re-calibrate their spending and so find themselves coming up short. But if we dialed the clock back to 20 year ago prices and 20 year ago incomes, those same people would have the same problems.
And on housing, the problem is that when more and more people are living in the same area (aka population growth), one variable out of price, proximity and property type (size/quality of house/section) has to change. It is logically impossible for that not to happen. And so, with population growing, people have to accept either increased price, decreased proximity or a less desirable property type (or, more likely, adjustments to all three). It isn't greed, evil investors pushing up prices etc., it is simply economic principle at play.
"It's not about wise choices, it's mostly about luck" is pure BS except, perhaps, for the luck involved in winning the genetic lottery that is high IQ/EQ. Accountants do see people from all (financial) levels of society (there are plenty of self-employed "poor" people), and those on struggle street are almost always those who repeatedly make bad financial/life decisions. The thing is, when you make a bad decision because you don't know any better, it feels like bad luck however that is rarely the case. Consumer debt is probably the most common bad decision. And the idea that rich people are lucky and mostly have it handed to them is just so not true. Almost all of my "rich clients (net worths >$10M) have started out working class and have worked exceptionally hard, taken calculated risks, and made wise choices to get where they are. Yes, some people get it handed to them, but those people are statistical anomalies. And, on the flip side, there are some people that have made all the right choices and just had repeated bad luck but they're again statistical anomalies. If you know how to make wise choices, bad luck knocks you back but you get back up again; if "bad luck" keeps you down, it is almost certainly poor decisions and not bad luck.
And to close, the fact that most of the people in society who are genuinely struggling are doing so due to their bad decisions isn't reason to ignore them and walk on by. But it most definitely is a reason not to forcibly take money off those who've made wise choices and hand it to those that will squander it.
"Eating out is common place, as are all manner of consumer electronics; I've even seen being able to fly back to the Islands to visit family being put forward as a basic "necessity". Clothes are cheap (unless you want name brand stuff, although name brands are still very commonly seen in lower-socioeconomic areas)
People are now having trouble feeding themselves & their families putting food on the table - eating out isn't something they can afford.
I can recall just a few years ago, posters on the TM forum querying whether or not anyone on a low income should in fact have a television. Or computer. Or a cell phone. Or children.
There's quite a lot of blaming the poor for being poor which even now still goes on; it may be a hangover from Victorian times, when poor families were routinely viewed with suspicion & denied food with which to feed their children if they failed to meet their conditions, such as attending church - & never mind if their clothes were too threadbare or they were too ill - their children went without.
Foolish choices can happen - to ALL humans, rich & poor alike.
(14-06-2023, 05:43 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: We cannot judge the present by our pasts. Rose coloured lenses or not.
According to the latest Green party post on Instagram 3.7 million kiwis who earn less than $125K would be better off under their income guarantee plan. .07% of the population would come under the proposed Wealth tax.
Boy, if that's true, .07% of the population are really really loud.
I would like to see the policy placed under a microscope, examined, costed, and fact checked by people who are independent and qualified. Not judged by those who are driven by other motivations.
Dken, one of the main reasons the wealthy pay less tax than the lowest of the low income earners is they can afford the best advice, the best means to avoid.
That is not fair, and has to stop.
Absolutely; plainly unfairness & perhaps time to as far as possible, close the loopholes allowing some to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
in order to be old & wise, you must first be young & stupid. (I'm still working on that.)