Gog.org.nz

There’s much current debate about punishing people perceived to be well off by the pathologically envious, but I have a gripe about the potential attacks on rental property owners, given that not all of us own a string of houses entirely funded by mortgages and making losses that we can offset against tax. I don’t – with only one debt-free flat, and from which the net rent (after body corp costs, small amounts of maintenance and manager’s fees) is substantially less than you could make with the same amount in a regular bank account. And now some berk in an ivory tower thinks we should be shelling out still more for the privilege!

To do very nicely these days, it pays to be poor. Picture from Dreamstime.com

Those who claim to despise wealth are often all too happy to make use of someone else’s, while it’s available for the taking.

In her 1960s heyday, Jean Shrimpton found she had a string of hippie hangers-on who rejected worldly goods but somehow didn’t object to using hers, or her cash; however, when both started running low, they were off in search of another mug. There’s an echo of that in the air today, but the trouble is, if too many high earners take fright, or flight, who’s going to be left for the rest of Society to sponge off?

When I was at school, a fellow pupil kindly took the time to explain why some colleagues picked on me. “They’re jelly,” he said. Once I had worked out that he didn’t mean they were soft and squishy – far from it – it became clear that those who were less academically inclined or who couldn’t be bothered doing the hard yards to succeed were using the only means available to express their jealousy of someone who appeared, superficially at least, to find much of the class-work a doddle. The fact that there was a personal cost – afternoons and evenings indoors, reading books, completing homework, missing out on girlfriends, and so on – seemed have been overlooked.

We have something similar now. It is a form of state-sponsored bullying featuring those who miss out on a lot of free time, working to put money aside for that rainy day, yet (because they are suspected of having cash or assets that others don’t) are either targeted to part with some of it, or the others get a free leg-up to narrow the perceived gap. I run a small business that often means working into the small hours, including weekends. No evenings in front of the TV, sport or hobbies here, unfortunately. I have a small family and have never claimed a cent in benefits (partly because I’m deemed to be too wealthy). I confess to being somewhat peeved at the sight of those with larger families and dead-end, low-paid jobs being given thousands in free top-ups and then putting their feet up in the evening. And when retirement comes, I will doubtless not qualify for a pension – assuming that such a thing will still exist – because I will have brought several million dollars into the country and, after tax, put some of it aside to look after myself and my family.

The moral is that I am a fool. I should have an unpleasant, low-paid job (or no job at all), half a dozen kids, a massive mortgage (or better still, just pay rent and let someone else bear the cost side of home ownership), crash out in front of the telly with a beer or five every night, watch my favourite football team at the weekend, claim every available State hand-out (funded by all those rich, home-owning bastards) and then plead poverty when either retirement or redundancy happens, knowing that Nanny will provide.

The ultimate East German limo - the extended Trabant. A cardboard cut-out of Socialist illusions that went nowhere

But I can’t. And it’s instructive to look at what happened in the former East Germany following reunification in 1990. An “Ossi” told me that, prior to 1989, East Germans were paid peanuts and had no cash to put aside; the upside was that rents were cheap, education and books were all State-subsidised, as was their limited entertainment. That system sort of worked. But now that they have a capitalist economy and the massive teats of the Socialist Nanny State have shrivelled, those who were in the later stages of their working lives back in 1989 are struggling; they never had any capital reserve because (a) it wasn’t available and (b) it wasn’t needed. Now it is, and a generation is stuffed. The younger ones have a slightly better chance, but it will be two or three generations before a balance is restored.

Here in Godzone, we are still being led to believe that Nanny’s teats are swelling, despite growing evidence to the contrary. But what happens when they run dry? Those who have put something aside may be better off for a while, but will probably face punitive taxation to help look after the have-nots and the wasteful, or will be at the mercy of the better-armed and less law-abiding.

So the question is: Enjoy the present, or worry about the future? And which is better: consumer goods bought on the never-never, probably with massive debt, and endless hours to enjoy them, or all the material goods you can afford, with no debt, and hardly any time to enjoy all that elusive leisure?