Absolutely great read from Bernard Hickey on Hipkins’ wealth tax announcement and the treasury report released yesterday:
That’s it. It will now be almost impossible for a wealth or capital gains tax to be implemented within the next decade or two.
The future of Aotearoa’s political economy will now remain frozen in its stagnant, unequal, unjust, unproductive and unhealthy state for the forseeable future. That’s what our leaders, and ultimately the only voters that matter, have decided. Those hoping to change that frozen landscape should now look after themselves and their families, and/or hope and work for an electoral miracle that gives parties who want such taxes dominant positions in any post-election negotiation.
You must log in or register to comment.
Here’s my voting struggle.
According to a political compass test I did last election, I’m most closely aligned to the policies of NZ first. I refuse to vote for them because they’re headed by an immoral, racist, unethical, racing-industry-owned scumbag.
I’d vote greens except they’re fighting hard to take the “most racist party” crown from Winnie.
I’d vote TOP except they don’t exist outside the internet - none of my family or friends have ever heard seriously of their policies or what they stand for and it feels like a losing battle to get them to even 1%.
I’m not the right ethnicity to vote for te pati Maori, they don’t want my vote.
And then labour completely lack the balls to actually make any form of change - they allegedly mean well but fuck it all up so badly it’s worse than if nact were in power.
So I’m left with national and act as the least bad?
I want to see change but I’m so damn tired and worn out from trying to stay afloat that I can’t be the change I want to see.
I wonder how many other median voters feel the way I do…?
Then vote TOP, at least you vote on principal…
Labour are not as bad as if National/act were in power. It’s not even close. They’re streets ahead on the employment space alone.
Greens are absolutely not the most racist party in Parliament, not with the Maori bashing National and act get up to. Their tax plan is also the best any party has to offer for everyone except those with more than net $4 million in assets (I.e. 99% of the population) and it would be real, positive change if implemented. It’s worth supporting.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4000714/Meet-the-whanau-the-perils-of-dating-a-Harawira
Mr Harawira drew condemnation from Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres and Prime Minister John Key last week after saying in an interview that he “wouldn’t feel comfortable” if any of his seven children came home with a Pakeha.
Definitely not the most racist, no.
Honestly, Seymour is one of the most reasonable people in Parliament right now, and I don’t like it. Also one of the most consistently opposed to racial separatism, too.
LOL. Calling the greens a racist party made you lose any credibility you might have had.
Their co leader has made statements that are objectively racist, they haven’t made her apologize or step down. They’re a racist party.
Their co leader has made statements that are objectively racist, they haven’t made her apologize or step down. They’re a racist party.
Which racist policies are they proposing?
Maybe you are the one that’s racist. Ever consider that?
Ooh, sick burn. Ouch, my feelings.
You sure are a sensitive fragile special snowflake aren’t you?
Yep, you’re right. I’m a cis white male and therefore I’m the cause of all the world’s violence plus my opinions aren’t worth anything. Thank you for showing me the light!
Your opinions are not worth anything but that has nothing to do with your white fragility.
Great job of putting the situation in perspective.
I’m still not convinced about the analysis of Labour’s reasons for ruling out the proposed wealth tax. As Bernard says, it would affect the top 0.5%, people with over $5 mill. And everyone else would pay less tax. Is that really going to be so unpopular among the median voter (almost all of who would personally benefit) that it would cost them that many votes?
I guess they’re worried about losing control of the narrative, but are Labour really that bad at managing their message? “We’ve giving everyone but the very rich tax cuts” - how is that a hard sell?
Anyway, I think Bernard is overly pessimistic in saying that ends the debate for 20 years. I don’t think politics in 20 years (or even 10 years probably) will be even remotely like it is today. All of our problems (such as this one, but also including climate change etc) will have well and truly caught up with us by then. The status quo of politics will seem like a distance memory by then.
Yeah, I’m really puzzled at what they’re thinking. I suspect this most recent statement is entirely motivated by wanting to control the narrative going into the election after the treasury report yesterday, but I’m also confused as to why they didn’t continue with the tax switch plan in the report. Seems like an easy win and relatively easy to communicate - my (pessimistic) feeling is they’re just not wanting to risk any chance of an election loss at all.
I agree with you - I really like Bernard’s take and I think the tone of it is absolutely spot on, because this really is an ongoing issue of parties (and voters) ignoring obvious solutions - but I don’t think it’s off the cards for a whole generation. I think this election is going to be a fascinating one, especially with the amount the smaller parties are picking up in the polling. You’re right, in 10-20 years so many of the problems we’re facing now are going to be so much more evident and affecting so many more of us.
my (pessimistic) feeling is they’re just not wanting to risk any chance of an election loss at all.
Yeah, I think that’s probably it… they are just playing a very conservative (small ‘c’) strategy because they are worried about how close it is. I still feel like it could backfire on them, but we’ll see I guess.
are Labour really that bad at managing their message?
I think they are. Remembering how they were between 2008 and 2017, at least. It was mostly luck that a constitutional clause let Ardern rapidly be elected leader because it was so close to the election. Before that Labour’s image was endless infighting, and the inability to present a cohesive unit really hampered credibility of the messaging.
I think Bernard is overly pessimistic in saying that ends the debate for 20 years.
To me, at least, it seems the main way out of this would be if Labour lost the upcoming election, then somehow got its act together super quick to go back to arguing for a wealth tax, then National+ACT had a really difficult time working together so as to cause their collective popularity to drop horrendously in a short time.
Labour hasn’t made a secret of the fact that it would like a wealth tax. It’s just repeatedly committed not to do it, because it thinks that’s the best way to win over the small number of swing voters it needs which National and ACT are also obsessively targeting with fears about what to expect from a Labour+Green+TPM tax policy.
Personally, I’m opposed on principle to taxing someone just for having something. Tax economic activity, sure, but I dislike the concept of a wealth tax.
Same with land value tax, it’s just a bad principle.
Agreed. No wealth tax, but capital gains, certainly.
It’s really not, it’s the main way we’ve broken up mass inequality and uneven power distribution in the past.
Why should simply owning things be more lucrative than producing things? Our entire system is geared to the former at the moment and as Bernard says, our economy is a housing market with bits tacked on as a result
Bernard’s being a tad dramatic, don’t you think?
Besides, if owning something is lucrative, tax the earnings.
That seems to be his thing, yes but there’s a lot to it. Capital gains tax and inheritance tax would fit the bill of taxing the earnings.
But really the end goal is to not allow enormously concentrated wealth to accrue in the first place because it completely fucks up society and the power that comes with it makes it self-reinforcing.
The only serious proposition for wealth taxes right now are very small rates (the wealth tax labour was apparently kicking around was 1.5%) and would only kick in at amounts above what the vast majority of people will ever see in their entire lifetimes.
The fact that would provide massive amounts of desperately needed funding for schools, hospitals and other public services shows how fucked up the balance of wealth in this country is.
Inheritance tax isn’t taxing earnings, it’s more like taxing a gift. Someone has built that wealth, paid tax on those earnings, and now that they want to pass that onto their children, the government wants another bite.
It’s wrong, in my view. The underlying principle is wrong.
That’s true to a point. The solution is to make it kick in at amounts above what most people will pass on and as a result you prevent dynasties forming that damage society and over time, amass so much wealth that eventually mean others can’t build up anything to pass on to their children.
Being against inheritance taxes outright is actually worse for the outcomes you want.
The solution is to make it kick in at amounts above what most people will pass on
I’m also not a fan of this type of thinking either. If it’s wrong to do, it’s wrong to do it to anyone. The whole “it’s only x% of the population” argument just makes me uneasy.
When I earn money I pay taxes on it. When I spend that money the business takes money that I already paid taxes on and also pays taxes on top. Apparently there is nothing wrong with double taxation.
-
Those are two separate transactions, of course they are treated differently.
-
They pay taxes on the profit, unless you’re talking about GST.
-
@Ilovethebomb @SamC personally I’m opposed to subsidising wealthy hoarders and taxes for the working poor
Cool, thanks for contributing.
Anyone else willing to believe that they can’t do a wealth tax due to some back room discussion with political donors who are all standing to lose if it goes through? Seems plausible no?
The idea of taxing someone just for having something feels wrong to me. Tax income, certainly, but any sort of land value or wealth tax just feels wrong to me.
Why? The lack of access to those things(typically land and housing) costs the rest of us a lot of money in inflated prices, so why not tax those who have more than their share?
Because they’re either earning money, if it’s a productive asset, which you can tax, or they’re enjoying what they bought with their taxed income.
It also just comes off as mean spirited, to be honest.
You’re also not addressing the underlying issue, which is a lack of housing supply.
