By David Aislabie
THE post-war New Zealand I grew up in was the envy of the world -- an egalitarian paradise and a great place to bring up children.
It is a sad irony that the baby boomers who benefited from the welfare state they inherited from their parents' generation should be responsible for snatching those benefits away from subsequent generations.
From the late 1980s, the gap between the rich and the rest increased faster here than anywhere else in the OECD. The top 1 per cent in New Zealand have more than doubled their income in that time, from $158,000 per annum to $337,000 (inflation adjusted). In contrast, average disposable income for the bottom 10 per cent is $11,000, and for the bottom 40 per cent of income earners inequality is made worse as they struggle to pay for necessities with rising housing costs accounting for up to 42 per cent of their income.
Wealth inequality is double income inequality, with the top 10 per cent owning over 60 per cent of household wealth, and the bottom 40 per cent owning 3per cent of the wealth.
High income earners can invest considerable surpluses to create further wealth and so the gap widens. Respected economist Thomas Pikety concluded that the main driver of inequality was the tendency for returns on capital (average 5 per cent a year) to exceed the rate of economic growth. To prevent the accelerating inequality, he recommended a progressive annual tax on capital, and to avoid discouraging innovation and enterprise he suggested inherited wealth should be taxed at a higher rate.