I
finally get to use the term inequality for my side of the debate (any debate)
for once. In my last post I wrote from an economic point of view on how Labour’s
plan for a compulsory Kiwisaver will damage our prosperity. That is, a
compulsory Kiwisaver via the then compulsory employer contributions, plus the
higher income tax rates required to fund the government contribution, essentially
drains (steals) the retained earnings that every small and medium sized employer can
otherwise use – if they were left with their own profits - to innovate and grow
their own businesses, and transfers it to a parasitic funds management industry
trying to pick winners by investing this investment capital with an elite,
small band of firms on the NZX. More crony capitalism, less innovation and diversity
across the econosphere.
But
I started that post with something that is unfashionable in the modern politick:
political philosophy; namely the simple point that once the state introduces
compulsion, the free and prosperous society is lost – there is no middle way on
the form a society takes. Here’s the cost of that on individual lives; the
below is breaking nothing new, but needs to repeated, often.
In
research unrelated to Kiwisaver I happened to be looking at the 2010 Mortality and Demographic Data prepared and published by the Ministry of Health. Several
things occurred to me upon reading this.
Firstly,
males generally have a higher mortality rate than females: specifically 1.4
times that of females. Then I realised that when I looked at the main causes of
male deaths, various forms of cancer and particularly heart disease, that I am
a prime candidate. My father had his first open heart surgery when he was two
years younger than I am now: 48 years old. More, I don’t do particularly much
to help myself here: I drink way more than I probably should, I love food, plus
while walking twice a day and kayaking in the Sounds, don’t really get the
exercise I should. But here’s the thing: I’m happy with trade off in my own
life of a shorter life, for being able to partake in that which I enjoy: food
and drink, etc. Note, partly off topic, partly not, I also insure myself for
the consequences (although from a public health point of view, my lifestyle is
irrelevant to any debate over the dictates mandated by public health: indeed, I
could argue that by dying sooner, quicker, I won’t be such a drag on the public
health system, if I end up in that system at all. From a personal point of
view, dying quicker will mean not having to find the increasing health
insurance premiums generated from the actuarial tables as I progress through the
age bands, (or not).)
And
all this is fine, until I am forced by the state into a Kiwisaver that won’t
payout until I’m 65, and possibly older as the goal posts are lengthened. There’s
a very good possibility I won’t get to use the sum saved by that age, I’ll be
dead, and it will be useless to me – though the SPCA’s gain, and noting further Mrs
H, or I, are well catered for on the death of the other. For the purposes of
this post, I am far better paid being able to spend this money now, or earlier,
at least, than at 65 years old. The state has no right to deny me my shorter
term pursuit of happiness, it’s my money, after all, and it’s immoral that it
would seek to do so.
Now
expand this out from me. Maori have a mortality rate 1.8 times higher than
non-Maori. It is especially pronounced for male Maori who have a 1.9 times
higher mortality rate over non-Maori males up
to the age of 65. So, Maori males, whose main causes of death are heart
disease and diabetes related afflictions, will be disadvantaged over non-Maori
under a compulsory Kiwisaver, assuming they, like me, choose to not 'fix' their lifestyles either and thus the trade off of an earlier death. A compulsory Kiwisaver in this respect is a cause of inequality,
surely? (He says, slightly mischievously.)
But
this is how stupid we have become. I can guarantee, indeed, think I have already
heard mooted the arguments from some groups who are mired in the slavery of identity politics that this means Maori should simply have a lower
payout age. A different law is required, that is, to non-Maori. And so it goes
on, as ever a proliferation of law upon law upon law to try and fix the
unintended consequences of previous bad law, in this case compulsory Kiwisaver.
I
end by simply pointing out the option the free society would take, the
civilised society, is to leave such retirement decisions to the individuals who
will me living their retirements: me, in other words. Do not force me into a
savings plan that will be useless to me. I will plan my retirement and take the
benefits of that and the consequences. I’m more than happy to do so. And don’t
allow law makers, or the Labour Party, to be so patronising as to think Maori
males aren’t just as well equipped and happy to do so, every individual one of them, indeed, statistics indicate it will be in their best interests. The only moral
basis of law in a free society is according to this individualistic ethic, not
a collectivist one, which is always the coercive boot of state in one's rump, which I'll grow to any width I like, thanks, it's only got to fit into my coffin and I'm paying the funeral costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment