Dear MP

I'm writing to you because you are my elected parliamentary representative and therefore the closest person I am aware of to influence change at government level. Although this is a letter written by an individual it does not carry views held by myself alone. I’ve used a multitude of arenas to bounce my thoughts off friends, neighbours and on occasion random members of the public. Of course I’m careful who to speak to about particular subjects but regardless find few are offended or feel betrayed by my views. So, I wanted to share my thoughts and ideas with you and hopefully get some answers.......Because I’m bewildered by some aspects of the environment I live in



Let me further make it known that I do not write this with any particular political bias; although I’m sure those to the left of the political spectrum may side with some ideas whilst others from the right may agree with others. This is a letter driven by a sense of fairness for all.

I feel it’s only proper to set the scene from which I am writing. I am a 37 year old University educated immigrant. I am employed by a private firm which pays me NZ $72,000 gross per annum and have use of a company vehicle and fuel card. Add up the vehicle and fuel card to whatever amount you decide but that’s my ‘lot’; that’s my deal. I live on my own, ‘own’ my living quarters and owe a debt of around $180,000 for the privilege of having title to my property....Ok, so the bank owns it really but there we go. I am eligible to 4 weeks leave and 5 ‘sick’ days per annum.




Not bad right? I mean $72,000 per annum is considered a very healthy salary relative to the average wage, my job is sound and I ‘own’ my own place. So what’s upsetting me? Well, not a great deal really, it’s just that I seem to be about the only idiot who lives off his own earnings with no other means of income and the only clown who pays full tax on everything he earns and that’s not fair - simple as that.
Amongst others, the following topics wind me up:-


• Income Tax (and I know everyone hates tax)

I pay tax - in the first instance in the form of income tax or PAYE. It’s the deal, the accepted penalty to contribute to and thus benefit from the national infrastructure. A necessary load we all bear...But..... We don’t all bear that load, do we? No, we don’t. We bear it to varying degrees or various reasons with a whole bunch of caveats in place. These caveats allow a great many people to reduce their personal tax burden from the stated and legislated IRD directives. That’s hardly fair.

Pick a method: Family trusts and income splitting, rental properties, obtaining items for personal via company accounts (GST free), creating pseudo lifestyle businesses, being ‘paid’ tax free company drawings...The list go on and on. Quite frankly whichever way you look at it such methods are plain and simple, hook line and sinker tax avoidance....SORRY - I mean ‘tax minimising’. Call it what you will. In far too many cases it is quite simply TAX EVASION.




Here’s the really smelly bit; you can’t dodge tax to effectively increase your disposable income if you’re poor and have few assets. What a joke!
So, let me get this right; because an individual is lucky enough to have some assets (by whatever means) and a healthy standard of living, they are able to use a host of facilities to reduce the amount they contribute to the very society from which they profit? PLEASE! Don’t tell me I’m correct??

What about the family with an income just enough to mean they are ineligible for any ‘kick backs’? They own no assets and rent their property. Can they feed from the tax fund that we have all contributed to? No, they can’t. It’s utterly unfair. I don’t care how much somebody earns; they pay their personal taxes and are not given the facility for retrospective claims against it.

I suggest the Norwegian Tax system as a very good way to move forward. Crucially, it’s transparent and is all public information. Your tax payments and my tax payments are available for all to see. This also means that we’re all obliged to be accountable and so there is little facility to hide earnings. Nobody will be surprised by a guy with three homes, 5 boats and Lear Jet yet pays bugger all in personal tax. The Norwegian tax system works and importantly, it’s fair. So, fix it ok? Employees (like me) are becoming sick of bearing greater tax burdens than their bosses.

Let me make it utterly clear that this is all about fairness. Personal gain at the expense of others is not fair unless a conscious and agreed transaction between all parties has occurred. It’s not my choice that others are ripping off society and yet I and others pay for it. It’s time for that to stop.

Let’s say I decide to turn my property (an asset) into a rental property. I will rent a room in a shared house. I’d do this because effectively it might (will) cost me less to live between pay-packets and somebody else can pay my mortgage. No surprise then so many people do similar! My asset gains value with time (under normal circumstances) and my debts diminish. Fine, deal done, no issue...Well yes, there is an issue actually. The issue is that things are not quite as simple and linear as that. For some reason we have a system in place that allows me as a landlord to claim reasonable expenses (laugh) incurred, against my personal income tax at the end of the year.

This means that I happily contribute to the pot of gold that runs the country’s infrastructure, pay-packet by pay-packet and at the end of the tax year I am eligible to stick my hand back into that same pot and fish out some cash in the form of a tax rebate. Lucky me! Hold on...Is it the choice of my neighbours that I rented my asset out? No. It’s my choice, my risk and for my benefit. The next door neighbour didn’t make the choice to rent out my property and yet they are effectively charged with ‘paying’ me for my selfish decision by mechanism of a tax rebate. Bullshit!

I could go on and on but hope you see my view crystal clearly. Even in circumstances that would financially benefit me, I feel the taxation system in place is just morally and ethically wrong. It encourages those with the facility to do so to effectively avoid paying their obligations. In my World a Kilogram weighs exactly 1000 grams and that applies to everybody.




• Welfare State


I’m pretty sure you’ll identify a common theme but for now let’s change topic. Let’s talk about the welfare state (Ironically it seems funded by those closest to it, via taxation).

So, I heard a true story the other day about a 25 year old guy who has a terrible condition that will ultimately kill him. The poor bastard suffers tumour growths. The problem is that his tumours grow on the outside of his brain. With time as the tumours grow, pressure is exerted on his brain as the tumours press against the inside of his cranium. This causes the guys demeanor to deteriorate and his capacity to function diminishes. He then requires and undergoes surgery to remove the tumours. In each case a small amount of brain tissue is regrettably removed during each surgery. There is no alternative. It’s a saw tooth decline. Each time the guy undergoes surgery his performance and ability increase (rebound), but never to the point they once was because each time some more healthy brain matter is taken. He will eventually die from this condition. He is already deaf and partially blind. His co-ordination is failing and will not return. It’s only going to get worse for this man with time.

The welfare state looks after this guy. They fund his day to day lifestyle, the procedures he undergoes and also after each procedure they fund his physiotherapy and rehabilitation.

Here’s the catch; he is only eligible for so much physiotherapy and so much rehabilitation each time. Then, he is placed back into everyday society until his condition deteriorates again whereby he will undergo the next procedure and the next rehabilitation. There is only so much money in the welfare state ‘pot’ to fund such things. It’s tragic and I feel very sad about such circumstances.




I’m pretty sure the Bull didn’t choose to be there. The same can’t be said for the guy on the ground. He chose to be there and he knew the risks.


What’s my point? My point is that this poor fellow is exactly what the welfare state in my view is for: To look after the welfare of those within the state. Crucially there is a key point. The poor guy I mention didn’t choose his circumstances and so he can’t be responsible. It’s not his fault.

I am a healthy (some may argue about that) heterosexual. At 37 years of age I am old enough to have fathered children and were it not for considered choices I would now have children. Decisions have been made in my life that have contributed to the demise of relationships and brought much sadness but I own them and I am at least partly if not wholly responsible for them. I’ll be straight with you. Until recent times I have not been in a position to be able to personally afford to have children and that is precisely why such decisions were made and I don’t have any.



My first year of teaching (2001) was teaching at a decile 1 school in the North Island. During one Year 9 class a bunch of paperwork lay scattered about my desk. Amongst the paperwork was a payslip. A student took my payslip. I didn’t chase after it. I suggested it be passed around the class and it was. I’m a rich white boy so all the class wanted to know just how rich I was. My salary of around $35,000 gross per year was in any case public information. I can tell you that it was pretty quiet as the payslip was passed around the class. Nobody asked me to buy a Ferrari for them, an All Black shirt or give them $2 (a very common request). On the back row, Stacey Renata spoke out:

“This what you get paid, Sir?”
“Yup” I replied.
“Faaaarrrrrr....” she said, “My Mum gets more than that - and she doesn’t even work!”.

And that is an actual factual bona-fide 100% true story. The exchange revealed far more than the printed dialogue suggests of course.

I don’t have the Children I could have had. Is the welfare state going to give me or my partner money for saving the state money and taking responsibility? No. Will I or my partner have any offspring to look after us when we’re older? No. Is anybody else paying for my kids in any way? No. Will the state give me money if I choose to own a dog, cat, budgie for company or provide better accommodation to assist such? No. Do I feel others are responsible for decisions they make? No. So why should I contribute to the lifestyle of those people? I want to pay to care for the guy that didn’t make the choices, not for the fools that did.



I realise it’s a big social issue but I also know that people respond to incentives or disincentives. As an example I believe you could reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads if the disincentive was an instant ‘no questions asked’ execution for those over the legal alcohol limit but of course our society just wouldn’t have that*. How about an intermittent $1000 cash bonus incentive for every 10 pieces of litter an individual collects from the streets? Ok...difficult to monitor and you’d probably create a black market immediately BECAUSE of the cash incentive but you get my point right? I feel the incentives to be responsible for the ‘average Joe’ are poor. Currently if you ARE responsible you are effectively penalised. I’ve already suggested examples as to how this occurs. It winds me up big time. Being penalised for being responsible isn’t much of an incentive now, is it?
By the way, some people have attempted to justify their position by stating that they are bringing up the next generation of tax payers to pay for folk such as me when I’m old and infirm. Rubbish. Nobody has kids for this reason and to suggest such is utter nonsense. Anybody who subscribes to such a notion shouldn’t be a parent in the first instance. Others have talked about the need to sustain the population. Well, The World doesn’t seem to be short of people and there are plenty of kids out there who need good parents, not just circumstantial parents.
I use the ‘DPB / children’ example because it’s the easiest example to identify. It’s very difficult to immediately measure how responsible the lifestyle of one person is relative to another. People don’t have electronic ‘black boxes’ to record how many smokes they’ve had or pills they’ve popped.


• Public Service Positions


This is really straight shooting one. I work for a privately owned firm. The firm and its employees pay tax that fund the Infrastructure of NZ. Part of that Infrastructure consists of a healthy number of government departments – tasked with the aim to make the place we live in a better and more ‘fair’ environment. That being the case, should it not be a key requirement that the personnel employed within such departments are treated with and exhibit the kind of behaviour they are tasked with policing? And should they not be the shining example of how the rest of society conducts itself? Too much to ask?

How often is a person sick? It seems that people working in government departments are ill more often than those in the rest of society. My employers grant me 1 week or ‘5 working’ sick days per year and accrue to a maximum of 20 days, depending on years of service. Many associates of mine are granted similar. Can you explain why IRD employees for examples are eligible for 20 days sick leave (that’s FOUR weeks!)? Can you explain why other government department contracts have this allowance as ‘unlimited’? Can you explain why school teachers are able to accrue sick leave with no maximum limit? Every day an individual is not contributing to our wee society is a day when every other sucker is being penalised. I think we’re all ok with people taking time off and not contributing if the deal is equitable and fair but it bloody well isn’t.



When away on business I’m able to claim reasonable expenses. The company grant me a credit card. Quite rightly, my seniors cross check my receipts with my movements and expenses. As a result, it is a requirement to be responsible. Its ‘transparent’ like the Norwegian Tax system you see? In other sectors such as our ultra efficient government departments, individuals are allocated a daily allowance if they are away from the home. Every night an individual is away, the daily allowance is provided and paid directly into the allocated individual’s bank account to cover the ‘inconvenience’.

In one government department I know of, the allowance in 2010 for a case manager was $70 per day – that’s $70 cash on top of the expenses of accommodation. Yes, I realise it’s to allow the individual to eat but $70 PER DAY? For God’s sake!

Now, let’s go back to the ‘people respond to incentives’ concept. If I am working for ANY organisation that directly pays me $70 per day for being away from home then I have an incentive to be away from home. $350-00 per week net is a pretty good incentive, I think you’ll agree? I think it’s pretty easy to live off that figure. You don’t agree? Well, its more money than a combined unemployment benefit for a married, civil union or de facto couple. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!?
Furthermore it appears that very little accountability is in place for the various government departments (I have friends and associates within such departments and I hate them...OK, I don’t really but I do like to make them feel uncomfortable at the super easy ride they have).

If one can derive any reason to be away from the office without any real qualification then why wouldn’t they do so? There is a real cash incentive to be had. Of course the incentive is reduced or may be increased depending on circumstances (family commitments, sports clubs or perhaps the allowance is $120 per day) but regardless, the incentive IS there. The incentive is also independent and of and, I would argue actually counters productivity. People you see have a habit of making their lives as easy as possible and will assume an advantage wherever they can. I’m a supporter of using what you have to your advantage but I do not support unfair advantage. The allowances and accommodation costs that the incentivised government departments expend are provided by the tax payer - so it’s ironic that the very people they to whom Government departments are accountable to, are paying rather excessively for their return.

My belief is that government or ‘state’ owned departments should operate and be as accountable as any private business. They derive a budget, they set target outcomes and they calculate the differential as profit or loss. If the difference is a profit then we cheer and sing and maybe even offer a bonus (the carrot). If it’s a loss then they need to either reduce costs or increase productivity (the stick) - pretty simple really. Is that so hard?

So, we travel full circle. It’s all about choices and being responsible or accountable for those choices. If individuals choose to take a risk they must be aware of the consequences. If they succeed, then their life position changes for the better - good for them! Let them reap the rewards (after they have paid their dues). If they fail, then similarly their life position may change and they might have to toil harder to get back to where they were.

This is not penalising those who take a risk, it’s not penalising those who don’t take risks. The consequences (good and bad) are available for all to see and yet we do little to redress the balance.



Teaching story #2 (yawn): This from a different school in the South Island where over half the students had a some record of a learning difficulty that was deemed to have a ‘potentially’ negative effect on their behaviour during the school day. I found the notion that greater than 50% of a co-educational school might have such ‘conditions’ absurd - even if it may have been true! It was just far too silly & improbable for me to stomach.

After a few weeks of hearing the same kind of tiresome discoveries about this student or that student, I’d had enough. My question to the Principal one morning during a staff briefing went something like this:-

“A Grand Piano is positioned hanging 20 metres above the ground by a crane. Below the Grand Piano is a large ‘X’. Each student in the school is positioned on the ‘X’, directly below the Grand Piano. A countdown is performed. The student has the choice to stand still or move. Each student is informed prior to the event that at the end of the Countdown, the Grand Piano will fall from its point of suspension and land on the position marked ‘X’ (on which they are standing). How many students regardless of behavioural learning difficulties do you think would remain standing at the end of the Countdown?”

How many do you think? I say a maximum ever of ONE. You only need to put your hand in the fire once to know it hurts and most people don’t need to do it themselves to realise that.

If we change the rules and the consequences (incentives & disincentives) then maybe more kids would stand there (maybe the piano will stop at 2.5m above the ground, so why move?)

Similarly it is very rare that people, bright or otherwise, will take a stroll on a rifle firing range or across the fresh green grass of a recently planted minefield. Funny that.




Incentives and disincentives

What will you do to help me? What answers do you have? I don’t want some ‘party line’ answer, I want actions. I want the platform to be fair for all and that means those who need and deserve a hand GET a hand, those who want a bonus earn their bonus and its fair and squarely owned. Currently its people like me who feel they are bearing the load for both the ‘dodgers’ and the ‘irresponsibles’ of society. We’re paying into both pots and it’s getting tiresome.

You must know that this letter could go on and on and incorporate exasperating stories of healthy folk appearing at WINZ offices to wait nearly three hours to gain a $12 food grant (could they not have perhaps washed a car & mowed a lawn @ $10 a go in that time?) but the theme is the same.

Help me. I’m wondering why I bother to be employed in a ‘good’ job – I really do. I know I could have as much money each month if I played the system and I’d have far more spare time to do what the bloody hell I like. I am not feeling encouraged to be a good honest straight citizen. It doesn’t pay!

I apologise in advance if the grammar and structure in this letter are a little lacking at times. It’s been written in a conversational manner - as if I was speaking to you directly.
Yours sincerely,

J. MacLellan


*Reference:-
Taken from a concept in the book ‘Superfreakonomics’
Authors: Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
Publication date October 20, 2009
ISBN 0060889578

(I recommend you read it.....But then you might want to write a letter like this one).