The View from Right Field

Honesty In Taxes: We All Have to Pay

There is a trend in tax increase proposals around the world.  Voters in Illinois this November will vote on a “Fair Tax,” i.e., a constitutional amendment to allow the Illinois legislature to pass a progressive income tax.  The key selling point in the campaign for the amendment, other than the name that the PR people gave to it is that only 3% of the people in Illinois will pay a higher tax.  Everybody else will pay less.

In New Zealand, which had an election last weekend, the Green Party proposed a wealth tax, but said it would only apply to the top 6% of people.  The center-left Labour Party rejected the wealth tax idea, but they did propose increasing the tax on income above NZ$180,000, which includes about 2% of taxpayers, from 33% to 39%.

China, WHO, and the Next Time

In a conversation with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last week, former New Zealand Prime Minister and former head of the United Nations Development Programme¹ Helen Clark said that, at the multilateral level, the world has not risen to the challenge of Covid-19.  She noted that, in 2014, the UN Security Council declared a public health emergency with respect to Ebola, but this time, the Security Council has done nothing.  As to why, she says it relates to the toxic nature of international politics.

Which is true.  But it seems to me the reason is more specific than that.  While Donald Trump does not believe in multilateral organizations and is, in my opinion, a terrible president in terms of foreign relations,² the biggest reason there has been no coordinated international action on Covid-19 is simple.  It’s China.  It appears China screwed up big time on Covid-19.  The best information is that Covid-19 started in Wuhan, China.  But for some reason China did not get on top of it right away (or at least didn’t do enough).  There are a number of possible reasons (and there needs to be an investigation), but regardless of the reason(s), at this point it looks like China had a chance to stop or contain this virus before it spread.  But it didn’t, and now it’s killing people all over the world.³  And the problem with a coordinated international response, from China’s part of view, is that part of such a response would be an investigation that would make China’s failings more difficult to hide.

Leaders Taking a Pay Cut Like the People They Lead. That’s Leadership.

I realize I write a lot about New Zealand, but when they get things right, why not.  Here’s another thing the leaders in New Zealand got right.  Last Wednesday, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced that she and the ministers in her government would take a 20% pay cut for the next six months in recognition of "New Zealanders who are reliant on wage subsidies, taking pay cuts and losing their jobs as a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic."  Simon Bridges, the leader of the opposition National Party, said he would do the same.

It's not like these pay cuts are going to save lots of money for the government or pay for the extra spending the New Zealand government is doing.  Rather, it is a matter of leaders showing solidarity with the people: people who have lost jobs, have had their hours cut, or are just having a hard time during the pandemic.

It’s empathy.  It’s caring.  It’s not politics as usual.  I wish we could have some of that here.

As We Start to Reopen the Economy, We Must Be More Careful and More Responsible

Dr. Scott Gottlieb here and Megan McArdle here talk about what we need to have to be able to reopen the economy.  The main point from both of them is that reopening isn’t going to happen as soon as one would hope, as fast as one would hope, or as broadly as one would hope (“one” being, among others, Donald Trump).  The key to re-opening successfully, i.e., without a resurgence of the virus, is to do it slowly and carefully. 

The same rules on reopening aren’t going to be able to apply to all areas of the country at the same time because different areas are experiencing the virus differently.  Some things will be able to open faster in some areas.  Some businesses will need to remain closed in other areas.  Sheltering at home may need to be around longer in some places than others.  What we can do, as individuals, is accept these differences.  They may not seem fair, but Covid-19 isn’t fair.  What we need to remember is that the enemy isn’t each other; it’s the virus.  While we would like to open all areas right away, we can’t.  It’s not safe.  So, until we can open all areas safely, all we can do is to open those areas that can be safely opened.

New Zealand: The Lucky Country in Politics – Follow-Up

A follow-up on yesterday’s post: With New Zealand now under lockdown, the New Zealand Parliament cannot meet for the next four-plus weeks.  So, the Parliament, which has a Labour-led majority, is setting up a special select committee to follow and examine the government’s performance while Parliament cannot meet.  It is expected the committee will meet by video conference three times a week.  The committee will be chaired by – the leader of the opposition National Party.  With a national election scheduled for September.  A lucky country, indeed.
----------
Note: Once again, I am simultaneously posting this on both of my blogs.

Once Again, New Zealand is The Lucky Country – In Politics

[This is being simultaneously posted on my other website, too: A Different New Zealand]

In December 2016, I wrote a post entitled “New Zealand: The Lucky Country – In Politics”.¹  Well, it is still true.  New Zealand has closed its borders and will be instituting a shelter-at-home order Wednesday at 11:59 pm, New Zealand time.  But what makes them a “lucky country” is two things.

One, the Labour-led government’s plan seems pretty decent, and they now seem to be doing it reasonably well.^2,3  Two, in the words of The Spinoff, a New Zealand website:

Inequality, Social Mobility, and a “Fair Go”

A new post on the New Zealand idea of a “fair go” is up on my other blog, “A Different New Zealand.”  You can find it here.

Mass Shootings: After We “Do Something,” Let’s Try to Do Something That Actually Works

With two more mass shootings, in El Paso and Dayton, we are told we must “do something.”  Generally, that means gun control, though it now also seems to include “red flag” laws, as well as more spending for mental health and doing something about violent video games. Okay, let’s do it, subject of course to the Constitution.  Not only the Second Amendment, but also the other ones: the First, Fourth, Fifth, etc.

But after we “do something,” let’s also try to do something that works.  Megan McArdle, at The Washington Post, has a couple of ideas on this subject (here and here).  Aggressive stop-and-frisk policing has seemed to reduce murder rates in places like New York City, but many people don’t like what they see as police harassment of minorities.  Also, given the distrust of the police by many people in places like Chicago, you wonder how it would work there.  Plus, these kinds of tactics wouldn’t stop mass shootings, though reducing day-to-day murders might save more lives than reducing mass shootings over a whole year.

Banning Semi-Automatic Weapons Doesn’t Solve the Problem (Even If It’s a Good Idea)

After the murder of 50 people in Christchurch, New Zealand, by a white nationalist will not be named in this blog, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern immediately called for a new strict gun law, which will be passed next month because all of the major parties in New Zealand support it.  Also, by issuing a new interpretation of what kind of a license is required to possess a semi-automatic weapon, the New Zealand government effectively banned the possession of semi-automatic weapons right away.

Gun-control fans praised Prime Minister Ardern and asked why we can’t do that here.  I already talked about that a little bit back in July of 2014, after another summer weekend of violence in Chicago.¹

But the most important response to people who want to “solve” the problem of gun violence in the United States by outlawing semi-automatic weapons or instituting some other kind of strict gun control is: Okay, fine.  But what we do with all the semi-automatic weapons, and other guns, already out there once we outlaw semi-automatic weapons (or institute some other kind of strict gun control)?

#MedicareForAll – How It Will Really Work

While New Zealand has been in the news for other reasons lately, a hearing before the health select committee of the New Zealand Parliament last week should be of interest to those who think “Medicare for All,” or some other form of government-run single-payer health plan, is the answer to our problems with health care.

At the hearing, women with advanced breast cancer asked for pressure to be brought on Pharmac, the government-run drug-buying agency, to fully fund two additional drugs for breast cancer, Kadcyla and Palbociclib (also known as Ibrance).

The pleas of the women were very moving.  One of the women said that Ibrance was a “game-changer” in other countries for conditions like hers.  She asked why women in New Zealand had to travel to Malaysia or move to England or Australia to get access to cheaper life-extending drugs.  Another woman said that she was alive only because she had paid for the drug herself.  “This would … be impossible if I had to rely on Pharmac.”