Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[MaybeTop8]

Isn’t Wiz just outlining the mindset & strategy of our current government? Rightly or wrongly that’s what our country is operating with right now and more than likely for a further 6 years plus. What is fantasy about that… as opposed to you finding fault in absolutely everything announced by the coalition?

From Wiz: "Ultimately long term, yes.

It’s part of sound economic management which incentivises individual responsibility (over the govt knowing how to spend money better).

Holistically, with the whole package, we are promoting working, housing and the economy instead of disincentivised all those things.

Were heading back to a rockstar economy instead of constant recessions. 3% total growth over the labour 6 years despite population increasing 6.3% over that time meant we are a poorer country after Labour (-3.3% real growth) which explains the increased poverty, homelessness, deteriorating health system, roads, etc, and house prices in the doldrums.

With sound economic and political management a lot of our issues will resolve themselves before the next election." end quote

There's so much in here that has no depth and is just a shallow repetition of neoliberal dogma. Each piece is extremely complex and if there was willingness on all parties here to have an actual debate (and to be honest it's too tiring), or be willing to explore the depth of these things we might be in a better place in this forum. Or not.

To take an example: "Sound economic management" - what does that mean? The obvious surface leaning is "I'll take that to mean what I think is sound economic management". There's so many interpretations of this. I come from a place where I want a constructive progressive model of government with cross consensus and removal of the short termism out of politics around areas that are affecting us all.

This is utterly different to the incremental short termism that we see today. And sound economic management in that sense to me is renewables, investment in our core services, growth of self sufficiency, consideration for the wider climate and it's impact, growing our manufacturing base and economy in an economically beneficial and sustainable way, growing our intellectual property, cgt, wealth tax over a certain amount (again, in depth would take ages to discuss), warriors to win the premiership (whoops, wrong place) etc.

That's just one part.

"Incentivises individual responsibility" - pure neoliberal bullshit out of the Hayek/Friedman "level playing field" crap. Growing community and investing in social relationships, breaking the cycles of poverty etc - much more conducive to building our country in a stable and collaborative fashion.

I haven't even gotten to the end of Wiz's first sentence.

So forgive me if I just summarise it with "Neoliberal propaganda"

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Who wants to apply with me for this job.

Work from home, 5 weeks holiday, $200k salary, earn more than your boss, a city councillor that is elected to engage with the community…

 

[MaybeTop8]

Who wants to apply with me for this job.

Work from home, 5 weeks holiday, $200k salary, earn more than your boss, a city councillor that is elected to engage with the community…

View attachment 7575

Can you clearly outline why you chose to make this comment Wiz?

What is the purpose of you posting this?

Rather than insinuations it would be good if you could state your case clearly.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Can you clearly outline why you chose to make this comment Wiz?

What is the purpose of you posting this?

Rather than insinuations it would be good if you could state your case clearly.

Wasteful local govt spending. They need National/ Act/ NZ First to sort them out.

Why should someone tasked with consulting with a small section of the community earn more than someone tasked with consulting with and representing the entire community?

Can you justify this? What would be your KPI’s to justify that salary?

While rates payers are faced with record rate increases and going broke… spend the money on roads and infrastructure rather than overpaid woke jobs. Jobs for the mates? Legalised corruption?

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

From Wiz: "Ultimately long term, yes.

It’s part of sound economic management which incentivises individual responsibility (over the govt knowing how to spend money better).

Holistically, with the whole package, we are promoting working, housing and the economy instead of disincentivised all those things.

Were heading back to a rockstar economy instead of constant recessions. 3% total growth over the labour 6 years despite population increasing 6.3% over that time meant we are a poorer country after Labour (-3.3% real growth) which explains the increased poverty, homelessness, deteriorating health system, roads, etc, and house prices in the doldrums.

With sound economic and political management a lot of our issues will resolve themselves before the next election." end quote

There's so much in here that has no depth and is just a shallow repetition of neoliberal dogma. Each piece is extremely complex and if there was willingness on all parties here to have an actual debate (and to be honest it's too tiring), or be willing to explore the depth of these things we might be in a better place in this forum. Or not.

To take an example: "Sound economic management" - what does that mean? The obvious surface leaning is "I'll take that to mean what I think is sound economic management". There's so many interpretations of this. I come from a place where I want a constructive progressive model of government with cross consensus and removal of the short termism out of politics around areas that are affecting us all.

This is utterly different to the incremental short termism that we see today. And sound economic management in that sense to me is renewables, investment in our core services, growth of self sufficiency, consideration for the wider climate and it's impact, growing our manufacturing base and economy in an economically beneficial and sustainable way, growing our intellectual property, cgt, wealth tax over a certain amount (again, in depth would take ages to discuss), warriors to win the premiership (whoops, wrong place) etc.

That's just one part.

"Incentivises individual responsibility" - pure neoliberal bullshit out of the Hayek/Friedman "level playing field" crap. Growing community and investing in social relationships, breaking the cycles of poverty etc - much more conducive to building our country in a stable and collaborative fashion.

I haven't even gotten to the end of Wiz's first sentence.

So forgive me if I just summarise it with "Neoliberal propaganda"

And this government and those to follow will target many of those issues you raise, however it takes time and huge investment that our country couldn’t afford if we continued going down the path we were on under Labour.

The tax cuts are part of the election promise lolly scramble that all major parties need to offer in order to be elected. However as I said in an earlier post that you haven’t replied to, I don’t believe it will add to domestic inflation pressure.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

From Wiz: "Ultimately long term, yes.

It’s part of sound economic management which incentivises individual responsibility (over the govt knowing how to spend money better).

Holistically, with the whole package, we are promoting working, housing and the economy instead of disincentivised all those things.

Were heading back to a rockstar economy instead of constant recessions. 3% total growth over the labour 6 years despite population increasing 6.3% over that time meant we are a poorer country after Labour (-3.3% real growth) which explains the increased poverty, homelessness, deteriorating health system, roads, etc, and house prices in the doldrums.

With sound economic and political management a lot of our issues will resolve themselves before the next election." end quote

There's so much in here that has no depth and is just a shallow repetition of neoliberal dogma. Each piece is extremely complex and if there was willingness on all parties here to have an actual debate (and to be honest it's too tiring), or be willing to explore the depth of these things we might be in a better place in this forum. Or not.

To take an example: "Sound economic management" - what does that mean? The obvious surface leaning is "I'll take that to mean what I think is sound economic management". There's so many interpretations of this. I come from a place where I want a constructive progressive model of government with cross consensus and removal of the short termism out of politics around areas that are affecting us all.

This is utterly different to the incremental short termism that we see today. And sound economic management in that sense to me is renewables, investment in our core services, growth of self sufficiency, consideration for the wider climate and it's impact, growing our manufacturing base and economy in an economically beneficial and sustainable way, growing our intellectual property, cgt, wealth tax over a certain amount (again, in depth would take ages to discuss), warriors to win the premiership (whoops, wrong place) etc.

That's just one part.

"Incentivises individual responsibility" - pure neoliberal bullshit out of the Hayek/Friedman "level playing field" crap. Growing community and investing in social relationships, breaking the cycles of poverty etc - much more conducive to building our country in a stable and collaborative fashion.

I haven't even gotten to the end of Wiz's first sentence.

So forgive me if I just summarise it with "Neoliberal propaganda"

If you want to debate facts…

Under Grant Robertson, government spending grew from around 28 per cent of GDP to 34.5 per cent in five years

This new government is showing spending reducing to 31 per cent of the economy in four years’ time.

What’s the optimal level? What allows our govt services to flourish? What allows families to flourish? What allows business to invest and expand on R & D?

I think the evidence is that 34.5% sucked us into recession by removing too much spending too fast from the taxpayers, business and economy

Tax cuts and reduced govt addresses this. What’s your thoughts?

 

[MaybeTop8]

And this government and those to follow will target many of those issues you raise, however it takes time and huge investment that our country couldn’t afford if we continued going down the path we were on under Labour.

The tax cuts are part of the election promise lolly scramble that all major parties need to offer in order to be elected. However as I said in an earlier post that you haven’t replied to, I don’t believe it will add to domestic inflation pressure.

Disagree completely of course, but that's okay, good luck with your politics. Time will tell, people are really struggling and based on the budget those on less are getting punished while the wealthy get more.

 

[dean]

Disagree completely of course, but that's okay, good luck with your politics. Time will tell, people are really struggling and based on the budget those on less are getting punished while the wealthy get more.

I used to think along the same lines as you. Then I noticed a common theme,
All the people I considered rich or doing way better than me were either, educated and practicing their discipline. Or, working their arse off in a business they had created when I was out fishing or playing sport. Or, risked everything they had to build capital.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

I used to think along the same lines as you. Then I noticed a common theme,
All the people I considered rich or doing way better than me were either, educated and practicing their discipline. Or, working their arse off in a business they had created when I was out fishing or playing sport. Or, risked everything they had to build capital.

Correct & if something like a wealth tax is introduced then that will disincentivise those types of people to stay in NZ. CGT I’m all for, however a wealth tax would be a very bad idea for our country’s future.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Disagree completely of course, but that's okay, good luck with your politics. Time will tell, people are really struggling and based on the budget those on less are getting punished while the wealthy get more.

The part that you completely miss here is that the wealthy are already doing a lot to support those that are struggling. The top tax rate was hiked significantly a few years ago however I don’t recall too many top earners complaining about it. You honestly just come across as a bit bitter & sad.

 

[MaybeTop8]

The part that you completely miss here is that the wealthy are already doing a lot to support those that are struggling. The top tax rate was hiked significantly a few years ago however I don’t recall too many top earners complaining about it. You honestly just come across as a bit bitter & sad.

Oh that's nice thank you. Where's WA Warrior when you need him for support.

Have a nice evening.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Oh that's nice thank you. Where's WA Warrior when you need him for support.

Have a nice evening.

I said ‘a bit’ - you are nowhere near the worst in this thread, not even close - that honour goes to the fuckwit who cheers on people getting cancer.

 

[WA Warrior]

Oh that's nice thank you. Where's WA Warrior when you need him for support.

Have a nice evening.

I’m here mate, I support you voicing your opinion for sure.

 

[WA Warrior]

I said ‘a bit’ - you are nowhere near the worst in this thread, not even close - that honour goes to the fuckwit who cheers on people getting cancer.

I don’t agree with everyone on this forum but there’s only one bloke that I have zero time for and it’s the person you’re alluding too.

 

[MaybeTop8]

I said ‘a bit’ - you are nowhere near the worst in this thread, not even close - that honour goes to the fuckwit who cheers on people getting cancer.

I accept shrill from time to time. Sad? Eye of the beholder. Bitter? Not even close. I think that context isn't provided by me.

The imperative is to call shit out as it happens, speak truth to power!

Have a nice evening though and that goes to everyone

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

I accept shrill from time to time. Sad? Eye of the beholder. Bitter? Not even close. I think that context isn't provided by me.

The imperative is to call shit out as it happens, speak truth to power!

Have a nice evening though and that goes to everyone

You should embrace Bitter - it’s iconic in our great clubs history!

 

[miket12]

Correct & if something like a wealth tax is introduced then that will disincentivise those types of people to stay in NZ. CGT I’m all for, however a wealth tax would be a very bad idea for our country’s future.

The reason the Greens and the māori Party like a Wealth Tax is that the government gets an immediate rise in the tax revenue they’d receive while a CGT or an inheritance tax and/or gift duties is that it takes time to flow through to the government as it requires an asset to sell or someone to die or an asset to be transferred before the government receives any money. The other issue with a wealth tax is they are an extremely inefficient way to collect tax… which is why most countries have abandoned them.

The problem with a CGT is it doesn’t just target the very rich but right down to a FHB using KiwiSaver to save for the deposit for their home. Labour has tried to win elections with it as a policy but there wasn’t enough information available about what they were proposing. Labour made no allowance for inflation over the time someone owned the asset… other countries do this. They didn’t say what the tax rate to work out the CGT was or if it would be the same as the tax payers personal income tax rate…. and what would happen if that capital gain pushed them up a tax bracket. Nor did they say what would happen to assets that had been improved.

CGT and KiwiSaver. This last week, it was reported that the average KiwiSaver balance is just under $40,000. Labour’s proposed CGT from a few elections ago included the capital gains from shares and managed funds including KiwiSaver.

I just received my Annual Statement from my KiwiSaver account. It had an 18% gain in the investment over the last year from rises in the value of the shares and dividends (which are already taxed) and very little from interest because it’s in a growth fund. It meant that although the balance had grown by over $12,000 in the year, the provider had only deducted less than $400 for tax. The CGT Labour proposed would have reduced that gain to $8,000 a year if it was taxed at my tax rate. While I can cope with that, why should a couple saving for their first house have to save 1.5 times longer for their deposit? Why should someone who can barely make the savings for their retirement have their savings when they finally retire reduced by 33%?

CGT and Inflation. Most countries with a capital gains tax take account inflation by allowing a deduction in the capital gain for inflation or they reduce the tax rate charged for a CGT to take into account inflation…. so if the personal tax rate the tax payer usually paid was 33%, the CGT rate was set at 30% to take into account inflation. Labour dismissed both as they said it would make the system “more complicated”.

CGT and Improvements. Most countries recognise that improving an assets, adds value to it so they allow taxpayers to deduct the cost of improvements off the capital gain. For example, I purchase a three bedroom house with one bathroom for $600,000 as a rental property. Three years later, I improve the property by doing an addition and, for $150,000, add a master bedroom with an en-suite and WIC. Six years later, I sell the house for $900,000, meaning there’s a capital gain over the purchase price of $300,000 which Labour would have taxed the full amount while most other countries would only tax $150,000 because I’d be able to deduct the cost of the improvements.

And, it guess worse if someone was to buy a property with space to put additional rental houses on it. Say, Jack buys a property in South Auckland with a 1/4 acre section for $400,000. He then spends $1,000,000 putting two new houses on the rear of the property to rent them out. Ten years later, Jack sells all three houses for $900,000 each. Under Labour’s CGT, Jack would have to pay tax on a $2,300,000 capital gain… but overseas, he would only have to pay tax on a $1,700,000 capital gain because of the improvements he’d made when building the two additional houses would be deducted.

Personally, I favour an inheritance tax on estates over a certain amount except it wouldn’t be required to be paid by a surviving spouse or partner or on money donated to registered charity. I’d also like to see the introduction of a annually adjusted Gift Duty to stop assets being distributed before someone died to try and avoid the Inheritance tax.

While we need to address generational transfer of wealth, after spending a lot of time reading about what tax systems are used overseas and the proposed ones here, I personally don’t favour wealth taxes or capital gains taxes.

 

[Tragic]

In the budget.
I like the more $$ for education, don't understand it enough to know if it is going to the right places but in general we need smarter kids.
Don't like the borrowing for tax cuts, doesn't make sense.. can see why they are dying it politically though as they campaigned on it.
Don't like the changes to school lunches, that was something labour did that was great.

The biggest miss is there is nothing aspirational. Where is the strategy? Where is the plan to increase productivity? Where is the plan to take advantage of the growth in AI?

There is too much investment in housing in nz, you get rich by owning property. Why increase that by giving tax breaks to people who can afford more than one home. It's just inflationary
Would be better for the country investing in innovation.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

The reason the Greens and the māori Party like a Wealth Tax is that the government gets an immediate rise in the tax revenue they’d receive while a CGT or an inheritance tax and/or gift duties is that it takes time to flow through to the government as it requires an asset to sell or someone to die or an asset to be transferred before the government receives any money. The other issue with a wealth tax is they are an extremely inefficient way to collect tax… which is why most countries have abandoned them.

The problem with a CGT is it doesn’t just target the very rich but right down to a FHB using KiwiSaver to save for the deposit for their home. Labour has tried to win elections with it as a policy but there wasn’t enough information available about what they were proposing. Labour made no allowance for inflation over the time someone owned the asset… other countries do this. They didn’t say what the tax rate to work out the CGT was or if it would be the same as the tax payers personal income tax rate…. and what would happen if that capital gain pushed them up a tax bracket. Nor did they say what would happen to assets that had been improved.

CGT and KiwiSaver. This last week, it was reported that the average KiwiSaver balance is just under $40,000. Labour’s proposed CGT from a few elections ago included the capital gains from shares and managed funds including KiwiSaver.

I just received my Annual Statement from my KiwiSaver account. It had an 18% gain in the investment over the last year from rises in the value of the shares and dividends (which are already taxed) and very little from interest because it’s in a growth fund. It meant that although the balance had grown by over $12,000 in the year, the provider had only deducted less than $400 for tax. The CGT Labour proposed would have reduced that gain to $8,000 a year if it was taxed at my tax rate. While I can cope with that, why should a couple saving for their first house have to save 1.5 times longer for their deposit? Why should someone who can barely make the savings for their retirement have their savings when they finally retire reduced by 33%?

CGT and Inflation. Most countries with a capital gains tax take account inflation by allowing a deduction in the capital gain for inflation or they reduce the tax rate charged for a CGT to take into account inflation…. so if the personal tax rate the tax payer usually paid was 33%, the CGT rate was set at 30% to take into account inflation. Labour dismissed both as they said it would make the system “more complicated”.

CGT and Improvements. Most countries recognise that improving an assets, adds value to it so they allow taxpayers to deduct the cost of improvements off the capital gain. For example, I purchase a three bedroom house with one bathroom for $600,000 as a rental property. Three years later, I improve the property by doing an addition and, for $150,000, add a master bedroom with an en-suite and WIC. Six years later, I sell the house for $900,000, meaning there’s a capital gain over the purchase price of $300,000 which Labour would have taxed the full amount while most other countries would only tax $150,000 because I’d be able to deduct the cost of the improvements.

And, it guess worse if someone was to buy a property with space to put additional rental houses on it. Say, Jack buys a property in South Auckland with a 1/4 acre section for $400,000. He then spends $1,000,000 putting two new houses on the rear of the property to rent them out. Ten years later, Jack sells all three houses for $900,000 each. Under Labour’s CGT, Jack would have to pay tax on a $2,300,000 capital gain… but overseas, he would only have to pay tax on a $1,700,000 capital gain because of the improvements he’d made when building the two additional houses would be deducted.

Personally, I favour an inheritance tax on estates over a certain amount except it wouldn’t be required to be paid by a surviving spouse or partner or on money donated to registered charity. I’d also like to see the introduction of a annually adjusted Gift Duty to stop assets being distributed before someone died to try and avoid the Inheritance tax.

While we need to address generational transfer of wealth, after spending a lot of time reading about what tax systems are used overseas and the proposed ones here, I personally don’t favour wealth taxes or capital gains taxes.

Wealth tax will never work. It hasn’t overseas and won’t here. The idea is appealing - divide and conquer. Take from a small percentage of rich minority who can’t fight back/ won’t get any sympathy and give it to the poor. Robin Hood style. Doesn’t make it right…

This site recently had complains about National/ Act getting more donations than Labour. Watch the donations sky rocket and bury Labour/ the Greens if they want to try to plunder a well off minority

 

[miket12]

Wealth tax will never work. It hasn’t overseas and won’t here. The idea is appealing - divide and conquer. Take from a small percentage of rich minority who can’t fight back/ won’t get any sympathy and give it to the poor. Robin Hood style. Doesn’t make it right…

This site recently had complains about National/ Act getting more donations than Labour. Watch the donations sky rocket and bury Labour/ the Greens if they want to try to plunder a well off minority

A wealth tax is great in theory.... a small group of people is taxed while the majority aren't effected by it. 1-2% of the population is never going to be enough to make a difference in an election and there's enough "envy" in society that any party proposing removing one will most likely never be in the position to do that.

But, practically, they are really difficult to administer. Before the last election, I went to a party debate. Chloe Swarbrick was there and at every opportunity pushed for the Greens Wealth Tax policy. Then they asked for questions from the floor and it soon became apparent the Greens had no idea on how it would work. Her response always went back to "the IRD will have to work out that sort of detail".

She was asked when would the taxpayers wealth be considered... i.e. at a certain date each year or would it be taken over the average wealth for the year. This is important as we all know, assets change in value on a daily basis and depending on when the valuations were done, would effect whether a person or couple had enough net worth to pay the tax or which bracket they were in.... let alone how much tax they would have to pay.

Questions were asked about how properties would be valued. Would people have to use the CV or get a valuation from a site like homes.co.nz or oneroof. CV's can be years old, so the tax payer could be underpaying or overpaying the wealth tax. Could those sites be sued if they got the valuations wrong if a person relied on their valuations and didn't pay the right tax after the IRD audited them.

She couldn't even say how fluctuations to share markets (and managed funds including KiwiSaver) and property would be taken into account.

Like I said, great in theory.... useless in practice. Which is why very few countries still have them.