‘Covid19 surtax’ could help balance the ledger
COVID19 is having a revolutionary effect on many aspects of life in New Zealand.
As a result of the shutdown of many businesses, and significant reduction of turnover even for many ‘‘essential’' industries, thousands have already lost their jobs, and many of those still working (some remotely) are having their pay docked, some drastically.
And worse is to come, with, for instance, the longterm effects on the tourism industry of the necessary banning of international tourists, at least until widespread immunisation against Covid19 is available.
At present there's general cooperation of the population (apart from an idiotic few, including a cabinet minister) with the Government's measures.
But a factor which might discourage New Zealanders from continuing to buy into the Government's plans could be unfair disparity. At present, in the financial sacrifices New Zealanders are making — and will have to make for a long time — earned income is dropping, and, especially significantly for the retired, investment dividends are reduced or cancelled; all while government and local body employees suffer no such reduction in pay.
And a pay cut of, say, 20% for all employees of a big business may sound fair, but means a lot more pain for the lowestpaid than for executive staff, whose income may be in high six or even seven figures.
A correspondent (whose own income will drop if his suggestion is adopted) of Civis's wrote to his MP, and to TV1's Seven Sharp
programme, suggesting a special ‘‘Covid19 Surtax’’, of, say, 25% (or more) on all personal income, from whatever source, above $70,000 per annum. It could be easily administered, by increasing the marginal personal tax rate on income above $70,000 from the present 33% to 58%.
Such a bold move would be a welcome sign that the financial pain of the lockdown must be shared by all (including MPs).
It reminded Civis of AA Milne's poem Quid Pro Quo, first published in Punch, on April 24th, 1940, which invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon) to tax all he had: ‘‘ Does this seem odd to you? Well, I'll be frank, you/ Mustn't suppose that I'm touched in the head/ No. It is just that I've got to say thank you/ I am still living — and others are dead. Others are fighting, and Death, ever present/ Swoops from the sky and spouts up from the seas/What can I do? I can pay and look pleasant/ Tax me, good Simon, as much as you please.’’
Surely not even the National Party or ACT would argue that such a surtax isn't sensible, given the massive increase in government spending that the Covid19 pandemic has caused.
It's time for resolute action on the revenue front, Mr Robertson.
The same correspondent told of a ‘‘street solidarity’’ move by a nearby resident, who's been flying a different flag on his flagpole each day in a sort of vexillologic ‘‘request session’’, in the last few days, recognising Denmark (a daughter of my correspondent, and her family, live there: it has the world's longest continuously used national flag, since 1625); Vanuatu (recognising Cyclone Harold's effect: Port Vila's main flag retailer is, apparently, the Catholic Book Shop); Friesland (a northern province of the Netherlands: its own Friesian language is taught in its schools); the Stars and Stripes (dedicated by the Marine Corps to a local, through a relative); and the (now retired) colonial flag of Hong Kong.
With due deference to the ODT's
April 1 front page, how about a footpath version of the Road Code for times of ‘‘physical distancing'’?
If, for instance, everyone kept to their left when encountering those going the other way, the one by the road could be responsible for keeping 2m from the one keeping by the fences, even if that meant using the road.
Someone overtaking another going the same way should have the same responsibility.
A worthwhile quick lockdown project for the Transport Ministry, perhaps?