By Chris Trotter*
When Barbara Edmonds made reference to the Roman Empire, my ears pricked up. It is, lamentably, very rare to hear a politician admit to any kind of familiarity with the past – especially the distant past. To hear Labour’s shadow Minister of Finance offer the career of the Emperor Justinian as a cautionary tale about the dangers of excessive taxation was refreshing – and profoundly disappointing.
Rounding off his interview with Edmonds on the current affairs programme Q+A, Jack Tame asked: “What does tax policy have to do with the fall of the Roman Empire?” Edmonds responded:
“When I was going through Law School, I was also doing some ancient history papers. And, basically, Emperor Justinian. It was the fall of the Roman Empire because, basically, they had to over-tax people to pay for the war and for the [indistinct]. So, the lesson I learned from that was that if you over-tax people, well, in Justinian’s case, it broke down an empire.”
Sadly, none of this is true.
The Emperor Justinian ruled over the Eastern Roman Empire – better known to history as the Byzantine Empire – from 527-565 AD. Far from presiding over the fall of the Roman Empire, Justinian and his generals recovered many of the Western Empire’s lost provinces – an achievement which dramatically boosted Byzantine tax revenues. Justinian used this surplus income to construct the extraordinary Christian basilica of Hagia Sophia. This, the Emperor’s most tangible legacy, still stands in the heart of Istanbul (converted, now, to a mosque). Justinian’s other great legacy, known as the Justinian Code, still serves as the foundation of Europe’s legal system. The Byzantine Empire did fall – but not for almost another thousand years. Its mighty walled capital, Constantinople, was besieged and conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1453.
No one academically equipped to lecture students in ancient history – especially classical history – could possibly have got the story of the Emperor Justinian so wrong. Clearly, Edmonds has misremembered the content of her ancient history course.
“Hardly a hanging offence!”, the ordinary voters would doubtless respond. “Most people don’t know anything about Justinian, or his empire, and care even less!” True enough, but they do care about being over-taxed. So, if Labour’s finance spokesperson cites the deeds of some long-dead dude as a warning from the past against taxing citizens too hard, then those same ordinary voters are likely to store her (mis)information in the back of their minds. A handy counter-argument to throw back at all those tax-and-spend radicals.
And, the political impact of Edmonds’ mis-remembered history doesn’t stop there. In the course of the next few months, New Zealanders will hear a great deal about being “over-taxed”. Finance Minister Nicola Willis will argue passionately that the Labour Government’s decision to allow inflation-generated “fiscal drag” to pour unwarranted billions into the state’s coffers stands as a text-book example of over-taxing wage- and salary-earners. To describe National’s policy of returning the state’s ill-gotten fiscal gains to the ordinary Kiwis from whom they extracted, as a policy of “tax cuts” is most unfair.
Now, imagine that Edmonds’ caucus colleagues are as clueless about the history of Ancient Rome as the average voter. (It doesn’t require all that much imagination!) In their minds, too, a little voice may be insisting that what Labour did was wrong.
Grant Robertson, acting with the best of intentions, had connived in their working- and middle-class supporters being over-taxed year after year after year. And, just as the Emperor Justinian’s over-taxation of Rome’s citizens caused the Empire to crumble, Labour’s reliance on the unfair extractions of “fiscal drag” contributed to the fall of its own electoral regime. If Edmonds’ misremembered history was to take hold of her colleagues’ imaginations in this way, then the Labour Opposition’s whole campaign against National’s tax-cuts could be seriously undercut.
False historical explanations of pivotal events are very far from being inconsequential. Perhaps the most pernicious example of historical disinformation is the Dolchstoßlegende – the entirely false accusation, spread by the reactionary Right, that Germany’s World War I soldiers, far from being defeated by the Allied Powers on the field of battle, were actually “stabbed in the back” by Socialists, Bolsheviks and Jews agitating on the Home Front. This “Big Lie” contributed hugely to the undermining of the Weimar Republic.
If people could be so dangerously misled about the cause of events that happened only a few months before; then misleading them about events that happened 1,500 years ago would be a doddle.
Then there’s the question of why Edmonds misremembered her ancient history so comprehensively. Could it be that she wants the historical record to show that excessive taxation is politically unsustainable? Is that because she is personally and professionally convinced (as a tax lawyer) that promising to raise taxes is politically unsustainable? Were that the case, then her appointment as Finance Spokesperson, ahead of the considerably more experienced – and fiscally radical – David Parker, could easily be interpreted as a decisive power-play against the Wealth Tax Faction of the Labour Party by Opposition Leader, Chris Hipkins.
To head-off such dangerous speculation, Edmonds should ‘fess-up to her historical mistakes and treat her colleagues to a short corrective lecture on the actual achievements of the Emperor Justinian. She could tell them about his comprehensive reform of the Byzantine tax system. How he both simplified tax collection, and made it vastly more efficient – thereby increasing the flow of gold and silver to Constantinople.
She could point out, also, the parallels between Justinian’s experience and Labour’s. How the so-called “Justinian Plague”, by decimating the Byzantine population, played havoc with the imperial finances – just as the Global Covid-19 Pandemic deranged New Zealand’s economy. Or, how the “Blues” and the “Greens”, rival chariot-racing factions in Constantinople’s hippodrome, joined forces in the “Nika Riots” of 532 BC – very nearly costing Justinian his throne.
There was a time when politicians’ self-immersion in History was one of the profession’s most striking characteristics. Hardly surprising, given the enormous advantage a solid working knowledge of history confers upon those with a hankering to make it themselves. Human nature changes much more slowly than human technology. There are very few, if any, political scenarios that are entirely new. As Mark Twain is said to have quipped: “History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
The trick, Ms Edmonds, is to remember the words correctly.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
62 Comments
"... an achievement which dramatically boosted Byzantine tax revenues. Justinian used this surplus income to construct the extraordinary Christian basilica of Hagia Sophia. "
Probably not the first & definitely not the last virtue signalling vanity project resulting from tax "surplus" = wilful misappropriation of other peoples money (cf Pyramids of Egypt).
Also, let's not forget that tax brackets were not adjusted since 2010 & then Key/English sat on these for years before offering their resetting as a last gasp voter bribe in the 2017 general election
I visited Istanbul for work around 15 years ago however one of my local colleagues mother spent a day showing my wife & I around.
The Hagia Sophia was not as impressive for me as the underground cisterns Basilica Cistern - Wikipedia
Labour’s reliance on the unfair extractions of “fiscal drag” contributed to the fall of its own electoral regime.
Furthermore:
Marx saw the debt problem. Marx, more than any other economist in the nineteenth century, collected every kind of quotation that he could on the dynamics of compound interest and how rapidly debt tends to double. Any interest rate is a doubling time of some years. There’s a rule of 72. I have a whole chapter on this in the book that we’re discussing today. Marx showed that there would be an inability to pay these debts. And he quoted, for instance, from Martin Luther. It’s ironic, immediately after I read that quote in volume three, I went out and bought a copy of Luther’s economic writing that’s published by the Lutherans. And I found they didn’t have his speeches on usury that Marx quoted. The only place where you can read what Martin Luther wrote about religion and the role of interest is in volume three of Marx’s capital. The Lutherans have expurgated it. That’s not our Martin Luther! It’s just amazing. Link
To my mind Marx is the most prescient individual of modern times;
https://www.britannica.com/topic/historical-materialism
Followed by a very close second in Albert Einstein.
..."Marx is the most prescient individual of modern times" - a hypocritical moral failure who refused to work for many years, look after his family & pay his debts all the while borrowing from & blaming others. An antecedent of the worst excesses of the modern welfare state.
"From 1850 to 1864 Marx lived in material misery and spiritual pain. His funds were gone, and except on one occasion he could not bring himself to seek paid employment. In March 1850 he and his wife and four small children were evicted and their belongings seized. Several of his children died—including a son Guido, “a sacrifice to bourgeois misery,” and a daughter Franziska, for whom his wife rushed about frantically trying to borrow money for a coffin. For six years the family lived in two small rooms in Soho, often subsisting on bread and potatoes. The children learned to lie to the creditors: “Mr. Marx ain’t upstairs.” Once he had to escape them by fleeing to Manchester. His wife suffered breakdowns."
Karl Marx - Revolutionary, Socialism, Communism | Britannica
Yet he'd be a multi-billionaire in today's world if you look at it from a royalties point of view. Artists and philosophers have tended to be the most underpaid creatives for their brilliance and foresight in nearly all societies come and gone.
That anyone would think they should have had to sell their labor to earn a living makes no sense to me, as the knowledge and the beauty they create is more than enough of a payment to society at large for me.
Hence, why I am all for a UBI - and I suspect Marx would be too - it's about humans being humane.
Agree with both your comments Kate.
It's a pity that others misconstrued Marx' work and created a tyrannical version of communism. As far as I'm aware Marx had no template for communism and to attribute the blame to him (and the failed versions of communism) has only made human and societal evolution harder to progress. Overemphasizing capitalism as the least worst system is a failure, an unwillingness to learn, think or know better.
It's also a pity that some choose to highlight his character failings and therefore negate his teachings and message. They fail to expand their own mind, their compassion and understanding. I believe there are many humans with a higher conscience, a higher hope for humanity, that easily fall into despair and Marx was one of these. It's also part of the Yin and Yang, the shadow and light in each of us, the duality and polarity in the material realm. Rather than criticizing or judging the individual, one can attempt to support and encourage them and also learn lessons for themselves.
I also highlight Abraham Maslow as another great philosopher and teacher and wonder why so much effort to debunk and hide his work. As a social science, psychology appears to have got it majorly wrong too. To think that the human journey/experience is just about getting and having "riches" and not aim for something higher doesn't make sense in the long run.
Largely from land tax. One would keep consumption and excise taxes - dump PAYE up to the amount of PAYE that would be due up to the equivalent of the UBI, and perhaps introduce polluter-pay taxes as well. And while we're being transformational - toll all the State Highways but make public transport free once PT connects throughout the country.
Like virtually all politicians she no doubt believes that taxation finances the government but this is completely back to front thinking because the government is completely self funded by the use of its own currency and which we only return back to the government through taxation..
The Self Financing State, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/sites/bartlett_public_pur…
Yes MMT has many ideas that would change the current paradox. In my opinion. the issue with it remains however that currency has an external role that can heavily affect our quality of life. Foreign holders of the fiat currency are able to set an exchange rate that allows for the devaluation but the poor citizen just has to chew it and the devaluation is simply inflation we import.
This is because we run current account deficits and which are paid for in NZ Dollars and not because we have a government running budget deficits. A currency should be allowed to find its own value and this can help to level out trade imbalances. MMT in the main is purely describing how our monetary system already works and its not really offering policy prescriptions other than for a job guarantee to smooth out the business cycle. What our politicians would do with a better understanding of our monetary system would still be in their hands but it would offer them greater scope.
Fortunately you do not have to go back to the Byzantine Era to see the effect of higher taxes on a country. You only need to look to the modern day USA. High tax states like California, New York and Illinois are haemorraghing people and businesses to low tax states like Florida.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/02/new-york-california-lose-billions-in-in…
Even over the ditch, Victoria's recent flurry of new taxes has seen people, businesses, and investment move to NSW and QLD.
https://vic.liberal.org.au/article/2024-02-21-labors-addiction-to-taxes…
With over 74,000 Kiwi's fleeing to Australia in the last year, do we really want to impose higher taxes on those that remain, so that even more are incentivised to leave? One good thing about the global move to open borders is that people are now free to move wherever is best for them - if that's Australia, Singapore, Dubai or Bali then that's where people will go.
If the government is running budget deficits then it is giving us more of its money than it is taking away again through taxation and so this leaves us with a surplus of money to add to our savings or pay down our mortgage debt as sectoral balances illustrates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances
Australia's advantage over us is that it runs foreign sector surpluses while we run deficits.
Australia's advantage over us is that it runs foreign sector surpluses while we run deficits
That's not really the case. Australia had it's first (maybe second) current account surplus in 40 years in 2021 due to Covid (high commodity prices and minimal international travel). Australia does a bunch of things better, but it's external accounts are not one of them despite huge terms of trade boost since early 2000's.
As to the article, are any of us surprised? She probably didn't think anyone would bother fact-checking her. Name me any cerebral politicians.
The Topkapi Palace is equally impressive, though I strongly recommend giving the Grand Bazaar a miss.
There is very little opportunity to buy NZ made now days since most of our manufacturing has been closed down or sold off. I do have a NZ made washing machine and which has lasted me well but even that is now no longer a possibility. We are trying to support a burgeoning population by exporting the same old low value commodities and which are produced on a fixed land area.
We import capital due to our own savings pool being wholly inadequate to fund our growth. We should be thankful someone else has bothered to help us (all be it very profitable - so far).
Many international banks can't make it work. I doubt the Aussie banks could leave even if they wanted to - who would buy their books?
I think you might want to check Australia's tax brackets there before making a comment on them KW. In any case, people aren't moving to Aus because of tax, they're moving because of wages, opportunities, experiences, affordability and a multitude of reasons that isn't tax.
Anecdotally, adjusting tax brackets to match Australia (which is higher) wouldn't be a deciding factor for anyone I know (mostly young professionals) in staying or leaving if they were already going to do so. Wages would almost certainly be the main driver, followed by going to a bigger pond and getting more worldly experience.
Australian tax bracket changes 1st July 2024
https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/new-legislation/in-detail/individuals/…
That would be commenting on trailing Australian migration in regards to upcoming tax changes, so the upcoming changes don't have an effect on why people have moved. It is also still higher than us at the higher end, like they are now.
My points still stand, income tax is basically not a factor in people moving across the ditch.
Even their highest tax bracket (45% vs 39% in NZ) is offset by the fact that 12% (as of 2025) on top of their wages is going into superannuation. Would you pay an extra 6% in tax if you get 12% extra in super? (vs 3% employer contribution in NZ)
And that 45% is before salary sacrificing lowers your taxable income or claiming tax deductions (like rental property losses against personal income). Or the use of self managed superannuation funds as vehicles to hold businesses, property and investments where income is taxed at 15% and capital gains at 10%. In Australia, if your personal/SMSF income tax rate is lower than the company tax rate you get the difference from franking credits on dividends paid back to you in cash (great for people like retirees or stay at home parents with no employment income). If you want to get ahead in Australia, the Australian tax system helps you rather than hinders you like in NZ.
People are moving to Australia because the cost of living is too high in NZ and nobody can get ahead. Raising taxes will simply make it even harder, and exacerbate the exodus. Now that citizenship is on the table, its not just young people moving over there. Families are now free to make the shift as they can get citizenship for their kids, and their elderly parents can accompany them as well. The top three questions (after "how to get a job) on the FB group "Kiwis Moving to Australia" is (1) finding schools and accessing childcare, (2) whether to sell or rent their home out (3) transferring the NZ pension to Australia. Its not uncommon now to see posts from people saying that 3 generations are all leaving together.
One good thing about the global move to open borders is that people are now free to move wherever is best for them - if that's Australia, Singapore, Dubai or Bali then that's where people will go.
Water shortage and mass migration have been tipped to be the looming problems of the world. We have always been a nomadic species historically, using resources up then moving on to greener pastures. the issue now is that instead of sticking around to be a part of the solution, everyone feels they can just up and leave to the next best place, and as this happens in increasing frequency with more and more information online of how to move and get set up etc building confidence, we will see what we are now: Too much migration to places like NZ, Australia which puts pressure on infrastructure, rents etc. At some point the resources will run dry completely and competition for them will cause instability, or residents will need to take action en masse to be part of the solution, which will require a pace of behavioural change not usually accustomed to on a societal scale.
How many theories have you heard on what caused the Roman Empire to collapse? All most all of them are used as "evidence" to "prove" a point the author is trying to make. The real test here is realising the well is poisoned and either spend hours or years researching it or assume they are all bad take and not consider them to fact.
All most everything we get told about history (even the stuff that happened after we were born) is missing the full context to learn the real lessons. Any time they try to tell us what's it an example of it's effectively propaganda. I'm not surprised a lot of our current politicians have not picked up on this.
Yes, I love this quote from my favourite textbook on NZ environmental history;
There is a pernicious ‘presentism’ abroad in this country: a tendency to portray landscapes as if they ‘are’ rather than as having histories by which they come to be. To accept the assumption that this is the harmonious ‘clean and green’ country of tourism brochures and campaigns is to misread a history of territorial and environmental learning, conduct and contest .. and to miss all that is enlivening about New Zealand past and present.
Pawson, E. & Brooking, T. (Eds.), 2002. Environmental Histories of New Zealand. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
An interesting comparison to Winston Peters' SOTN speech on the weekend. He commented on holding the speech in a University town - a University that was teaching a "misremebering" of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as being a partnership between the Crown and the Māori chiefs.
History may not repeat but it is often contested :-).
Indeed. And the Magna Carta went further in prohibiting the Crown from intervening in the legitimately owned property of its people. That though didn’t prevent that celebrated lover of the law, Minister Parker authorising the IRD to do just that in his thinly disguised attempt to impose a wealth tax.
Application and enforcement of a wealth tax requires assessment of all assets owned by individuals by value, status and disposal. That in turn requires dossiers to be created and maintained. Up until Parker’s legislation no government agency had any authority to either enquire of and/ or record detail as such. This the Greens knew which is why, if you read that manifesto, they had to justify that power in their wealth tax version on the grounds that the crown was entitled to act as such, in the case of suspected benefit fraud etc and they intended to pass the requisite legislation accordingly. Parker did it for them as a so called enquiry only, of certain targeted wealthy individuals but insisted the intention was no more than that. Yet when, with the mechanism now in place, PM Hipkins ruled out a wealth tax,, Minister Parker resigned, threw the toys out the window and jumped after them. No paranoia, just connecting the dots.
""Procopius, in his 'Secret History,' accuses Justinian of overtaxing the Roman people into mass poverty. The historian alleges that Justinian not only imposed heavy taxes but also confiscated funds and properties by accusing individuals of fabricated charges like paganism, heresy, and other offenses. Additionally, Procopius criticizes Justinian for withholding regular state expenditure, which affected public services and led to the degradation of various aspects of society, such as education and infrastructure. The Secret History also highlights how Justinian's financial policies impacted the urban poor, with cheaper bread being produced by substituting portions of flour with ash due to financial constraints imposed by the emperor""
At least recent NZ governments have only degraded our education and infrastructure; so far the bread is still OK.
Asked an AI which linked to Britannica: ""The taxation policies implemented by Justinian had long-lasting effects on the empire. After his reign, his successors faced difficulties in maintaining the integrity of the empire due to the financial strain caused by the taxation practices. The need to fund an enlarged empire while avoiding unrest from the overtaxed population created a dilemma for subsequent rulers. Attempts to reduce taxes highlighted the challenges of balancing financial stability and social harmony. Ultimately, Justinian's tax policies left a legacy of economic strain, social discontent, and strategic weaknesses that persisted beyond his reign.""
Its debatable whether our bread is still ok when made with the Chorleywood Process and debased with the use of soya flour.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/apr/16/recipes.foodanddri…
& Labours enforced mass medication of the people with folic acid (including the half who cannot get pregnant as well as the half that might forget to take their supplements)
Folic acid fortification of bread | NZ Government (mpi.govt.nz)
Generally I've the same fear of the govt imposing things that you have. I just about accept being forced to drive on the left but object to compulsary bicycle helmets. However many years ago I met a nurse who worked at a childrens hospital in England - she said the difference between folic acid in bread was a dozen cases of serious neural tube defects / spina bifida per year in her ward reducing to one comparatively minor case. To quote her exact words "it was a miracle". It would take a very authorative, detailed persuasive argument to change my mind.
Folic acid is readily available as a subsidised supplement for responsible would be mothers.
https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/for-the-health-sector/health-sector-guid…
Over 40 years ago there were more than a dozen irresponsible mothers in Nottinghamshire giving birth annually. The symptoms of spina bifida include:
- Bladder and bowel problems (incontinence)
- Sexual dysfunction.
- Weakness and loss of sensation below the defect.
- Inability to move the lower legs (paralysis) and other cognitive impairments.
If those symptoms applied to the mothers not their babies I'd agree with you. Mothers who wish to avoid folic acid in their bread can knead their own dough.
Still the decision to impose an additive to bread should be democratic and publically debated. I'd vote for it.
Is there any way of knowing if those symptoms were solely due to a lack of folic acid or were there other contributing factors?
Should the democratic process/mass medication issue also apply to flouride and Covid vaccines? And does it work if the public are misinformed/propagandized to the extreme?
Folic and Fluoride - knowledge of their effects has been known for a long time and can be retested - so safe for the evidence to be challenged and debated. Covid vaccine you have a point - not a fair debate when the media is controlled. Now John Campbell's youtube videos come with ""Get the latest information from the New Zealand Government Ministry of Health."" which is fair enough leaving us to decide if we trust our govt.
Side effects of excess folic acid include masking a B12 deficiency, compromised immune function, and increased prostate cancer risk.
Folic acid supplements may interact with commonly prescribed medications, including methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and various anti-epileptic medications such as Depacon, Dilantin, and Carbatrol" (they are cancer and epilepsy drugs)
If you force drugs on people through food and water who then have no choice but to take it, what happens when those people suffer side effects?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.