-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
@canefan Kiwibuild targets were too ambitious for the conservative fiscal approach to it.
It’s almost like they learned the theory but have never had to run an actual business or implement anything.
Add in their consistent surprise at unintended consequences (like attacking landlords raising rents for the poor), and the damage these clowns are doing is huge.
And Cindy's penchant for recruiting lawyers, community medical people and probably more teachers instead of actual business people that run actual businesses into her caucus will not help.
-
@canefan I think it's more likely to solidify their vote - maybe take a few off labour.
Greens wet dream must be Labour get 47 ish seats, NZF fail to clear 5% and they hold the balance of power alone.
Their wealth tax works towards that strategy. Takes away from Labour some of the less centrist socialists making them more important in any coalition but unlikely to cost them any votes.
It's also good for everyone else too - except Labour. Gives all the centre right parties a stick to beat Labour and the Greens with. Terrible for Labour for that very reason. Last thing they want is a debate over tax
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@canefan I think it's more likely to solidify their vote - maybe take a few off labour.
Greens wet dream must be Labour get 47 ish seats, NZF fail to clear 5% and they hold the balance of power alone.
Their wealth tax works towards that strategy. Takes away from Labour some of the less centrist socialists making them more important in any coalition but unlikely to cost them any votes.
It's also good for everyone else too - except Labour. Gives all the centre right parties a stick to beat Labour and the Greens with. Terrible for Labour for that very reason. Last thing they want is a debate over tax
Labour would not agree to such a tax anyway I reckon, it would scare away centrist middle class voters
-
Muller said he doesn't think the border needs to be opened up anytime soon, but that the Government should provide a strategy and criteria for it.
"I'm not saying in any way that this is short-term, but what I am saying is this thinking should be put in the public. We should be reflecting about that as New Zealanders and saying, how would that work?"
Surely now would be a good time for National to front up with a strategy?
It is easy to say one thing, but to do so without a plan seems like he is being oppositional for the sake of it, which I thought he said he wasnt wanting to do?
-
Oh god, back to this whole 'tell us the criteria' rubbish.
Every day new information comes out about the virus and about how countries are coping.
To try and pin a target on a moving animal is hardly helpful for business confidence.
Sure, it would be lovely if we had this clear situation where we could say international borders open to these people at these thresholds but what happens when those thresholds become redundant because of something else? Everyone then gets upset saying they have wasted planning and the goalposts have moved.We are 6 months into the world dealing with a previously unknown enemy. That isn't really that long.
What happens if COVID gets back to communities in NZ? Do we go all L4 again and fuck over everyone getting back on their feet? Or do we say 'fuck it we tried and give up. Let the thing do it's worst and we'll see what is left at the other end'.
Neither seem a good outcome for an economic recovery.
At least in the current set up we can have people out working, making exports, getting on with their lives and businesses adjusting to known situations. That puts us in a better place to look after the casualties of the first half of the year. -
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Every day new information comes out about the virus and about how countries are coping.
To try and pin a target on a moving animal is hardly helpful for business confidence.I agree, this is fast moving and changing.
That said, there should be some broad scenarios articulated that show paths out of this mess. Which one you choose is ultimately up to the government and the way that this plays out, but having some broad resilience responses is super important.
So, top of my head:
Scenario 1 - Best case
Vaccine gets developed, tested, produced and deployed in the next 18 months
Anyone who's vaccinated can enter NZ
Once virus eradicated internationally, back to L0 and get on with your life.Scenario 2 - Intermediate case
Vaccine expected in the next few years, maybe reliable fast testing available
... ???Scenario 3 - Worst case
No Vaccine possible due to nature of virus (like AIDS), testing still slow and unreliable
choice: open borders with consequent effects; ramp up quarantine/managed isolation and offer luxury upgrades, or continue to be a fortressWhat concerns me is that there has been no discussion about anything other than 'close the borders'. So, if Scenario 3 starts to pan out, what the hell do we do? What are the costs if we keep the borders closed? I think there is a good discussion to be had here, because there are pros and cons each way - there is no clear 'right' answer. But we do need to start thinking about what the hell we're going to do if a vaccine isn't available for some time.
-
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
The Green plan would not be remotely controversial in most of Europe, other than possibly being too right wing.
Could you support that with any examples? Seems pretty left wing to me ... and not aware of wealth taxes like that in Europe.
-
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
The Green plan would not be remotely controversial in most of Europe, other than possibly being too right wing.
Could you support that with any examples? Seems pretty left wing to me ... and not aware of wealth taxes like that in Europe.
I was referring to the overall package more than the wealth tax specifically, but here are the top bracket tax rates in the OECD (36 countries) with our 33% being 29th out of 36 (the Greens 42% on $150,000 would put us at 24th):
For information on welfare systems in Europe:
-
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
The Green plan would not be remotely controversial in most of Europe, other than possibly being too right wing.
Could you support that with any examples? Seems pretty left wing to me ... and not aware of wealth taxes like that in Europe.
I was referring to the overall package more than the wealth tax specifically
ah, OK.
The top tax brackets aren't incompatible with the last Labour government, which got up to around 36-39% from memory.
It always flushes out the tax rate vs tax take discussion though - whether you actually get the money from teh top rate, as suddenly people are incentivised to move it into loss making ventures. The 80s was peak silliness for that sort of thing I believe, but tax avoidance is rife amongst the people with the money.
One of the reasons I was cross with National under Key, was they (in my head) should have a consistent tax rate between company rates, trust rates and top personal tax rate. For me, that means you spend less time juggling money around businesses adn trusts avoiding tax, and more time just trying to make more money and grow the pie.
This post brought to you by cliches
-
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
One of the reasons I was cross with National
haha, I think you are the first person that wasnt my Nan I have seen/heard use the word 'cross' :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_closed_eyes:
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
One of the reasons I was cross with National
haha, I think you are the first person that wasnt my Nan I have seen/heard use the word 'cross' :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_closed_eyes:
how do you know I aren't your Nan? This is the internet, dude, we're not all 40ish white guys sitting on the couch with cheeto stained grubby white vests in our Y fronts.
Most, not all.
-
@nzzp certainly a danger of seeing the schemes start back up. That said people avoid tax now through business via classics such as the company vehicle with full personal use but no FBT.
I like that the Green's wealth tax uses progressive brackets, but would probably be easier to do as a land tax since that's already independently valued through rates, or deemed income from assets as in the TOP policies.
-
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
The Green plan would not be remotely controversial in most of Europe, other than possibly being too right wing.
Could you support that with any examples? Seems pretty left wing to me ... and not aware of wealth taxes like that in Europe.
I was referring to the overall package more than the wealth tax specifically, but here are the top bracket tax rates in the OECD (36 countries) with our 33% being 29th out of 36 (the Greens 42% on $150,000 would put us at 24th):
For information on welfare systems in Europe:
That first table is interesting when you compare the tax rates to the US Dollar Avg Earnings by Purchasing Parity. Almost every country (bar Greece which is a basket case) that has higher top brackets has higher earnings. Switzerland is interesting in being higher tax but similar earnings to NZ but I think that is because of the purchasing power. Shit is expensive in Switzerland so money doesn't go as far.
You could interpret that many ways but it kind of shows that net earnings and purchasing power is the real measure of earning worth and maybe we need to get the concept of 'the govt is taking my money' out of our heads. Gross earnings will adjust to compensate.
With two party politics in NZ we get into a cycle of gross earnings going up to compensate for high taxes then not reducing when taxes reduce which is part of the equation to widening gaps.
Before people jump all over me as a 'leftie socialist' can I say that I am not anti anyone having the incentive to earn more or make money or even demand a 'market rate'. What I am very aware of though is that widening earning gaps create social problems and everyone ends up paying for those one way or another.
As a very simplistic example, in a more egalitarian flatter range of net earning abilities (like NZ had 50plus years ago) you didn't spend money on burglar alarms or painting over the graffiti on your business premises.
I know that is extremely simplistic and can be argued to shreds but the point is that we should (IMO) be aiming at some kind of balance between incentives to grow and spreading purchasing power earnings instead of swinging back and forth every now and then as the parties we have would make us believe. That just leads to having to use interference to try and correct problems and imbalances (be it tax hikes or handouts)Strangely enough I actually think Roger Douglas was technically correct in wanting a low flat tax system with wide coverage and few exemptions. Seems to be a very fair method.
NZ Politics